This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sale, Greater Manchester article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
Sale, Greater Manchester is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 10, 2015. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Why has the presentation of units been changed from showing miles first to showing kilometres first? Is this some general change that's been proposed for UK articles? Or is it just some tweak to get this article through the FA hoops? -- -- Eric 23:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Where has this change been discussed/agreed? I'm concerned that changes are being made not to improve the quality of the article, but simply to satisfy FA reviewers, most of whom appear to be US based. The objection raised about utility providers, for instance. -- -- Eric 00:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
In which other articles about UK cities/towns/townships/villages/... do kilometres come first? When did you last see a road sign telling you how many kilometres to your destination? -- -- Eric 00:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I had been given to understand that the convention for UK geography articles had been agreed to present miles (km). And that is what the overwhelming majority of the UK articles actually do. If you and and a few others have arbitrarily changed the goalposts for the sake of an "FA" rosette, then you are welcome to your compromised version of wikipedia. -- -- Eric 01:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Then presumably these same FA reviewers are too young to have driven on any road in the UK, where distances are invariably given in miles, not kilometres. And here's another example of the kind of nonsense I'm talking about:
After the arrival of the Bridgewater Canal in 1765 and the railway in 1849, Sale grew into a commuter town for workers in Manchester.
That's a span of 84 years. Is it being suggested that between 1765 and 1849 people were commuting to Manchester by canal? -- -- Eric 19:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Professional writing standards are not set by consensus among unqualified Wikipedia users too old to know what a kilometre is. Epbr123 08:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
As you have no idea what my qualifications are, or my age, then I suggest that in future you try to limit your remarks to the subject being discussed. Which is not me. -- -- Eric 19:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The population of Sale is shown as 134,022. This figure has been replicated elsewhere in tables of towns, such as this one making it more populous that Stockport, Bolton and many other places. However as the boundary clearly shows in the link referenced for this - the 134k includes large parts of Wythenshawe, Northenden etc. I think this figure is misleadingly large. Can anyone provide a more representative value for population of Sale as a town? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.102.98 ( talk) 08:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Apparently people have been commuting from Sale to Manchester since the opening of the Bridgewater Canal, in 1765. I wonder how long it took them to get to their work on these non-existent commuter services?
This article is fast becoming a farce IMO. -- -- Eric 01:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You really are a joker. So in 1766 there was a commuter service between Sale and Manchester along the Bridgewater Canal was there? Do the facts mean nothing to you? -- -- Eric 02:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking through the history of the article it would appear that this inaccuracy arose from a single sentence being split. The orginal statement was "... with the advent of the Bridgwater Canal in 1765 and the railway in 1849 the town flourished, and provided a means of transport for goods as well as people that allowed the wealthy middle classes to live a discreet distance from their work place, yet close enough to be convenient." This was perhaps initially a bit misleading but expanding the sentence led to the implication that the canal was used as a form of commuter transport which would be unfeasible. Bearing this in mind I intend to rework the sentence and any other discrepencies.
For the record, I think Eric's gripe was with "The canal enabled Sale to develop into a commuter town for middle-class merchants working in Manchester." Nev1 12:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's in dispute is it that Sale grew as a commuter town? It certain isn't by me, anyway, only when that happened and why. My concern was the apparent attribution of that growth to the arrival of the canal in 1765, rather than the railway in 1849. Sale's population appears to have started to rise significantly between 1851 and 1861, after the arrival of the railway in other words. [1] -- -- Eric 19:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to have attracted some strong editors, but there appears to be little quality discussion on how best to improve this article.
Before making some larger changes, perhaps we can make some suggestions here as to what we'd like to see on this article, and how we can best do this? Jza84 15:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what the talk page is for afterall. I would like to suggestion the following:
Objections? Thoughts? Jza84 15:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that comment of yours pretty much sums up my reservations about this whole FA process. It ought not to be a fight, it ought to be a collaborative process; there ought to be clearly established criteria, as independent as is possible from personal hobby horses or personal agendas.
For what it's worth, I'm in complete agreement with Jza84. If geography isn't about the division of land, then what is it about? I'd be quite happy to see the "Geography and administration" section title changed to "Geography", so long as there were still subsections for things like "Civic history" and "Political divisions". It seems to me that hanging on to historical boundaries causes a great deal of confusion in many articles. The population of Sale for instance. Is that the town of Sale (if so what are its boundaries) or the area designated as Sale by Trafford Council? -- -- Eric 22:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
They are most certainly not the same thing. -- -- Eric 00:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Because the boundaries of the town called Sale were the boundaries of the municipal borough of Sale. The boundaries of the present day area called Sale are whatever Trafford decides they are from time to time. -- Malleus Fatuarum 19:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
"Sale sits in the Mersey Valley..." Does it? The article says that Sale lies about 1km south of the Mersey, arguably within the river's floodplain, but not its valley. -- Malleus Fatuarum 19:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
That source says it's both "in the Mersey Valley" and on "the edge of the valley". Can't be both surely? -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
All roads in Sale running north south will go right up to the river. That has nothing to to do with the river valley. The Mersey has been heavily canalised throughout most of Greater Manchester. What's left of the river valley is the area immediately around the the river. And the town of Sale is about 1km away from that. There might possibly be an area a hundred yards or so wide on the Sale bank of the river that could be legitimately be considered to be in the Mersey Valley, but certainly not the town of Sale itself. -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The Mersey through Greater Manchester has been canalised, as I said. -- Malleus Fatuarum 00:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
As the boundary between Sale and Stretford is the River Mersey, 1km south of Stretford is 1km south of the Mersey. -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The altitude data for Sale, currently unreferenced, seems to have been taken from the same source. Another source ( http://www.fallingrain.com/world/UK/0/Sale.html) gives the data as 170 feet (51 metres) above sea level, not 98 feet (30 metres) as claimed. -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's anymore I can do for this article. It needs more detail in the history section, which I won't be able to provide as I don't live nearby. Epbr123 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Although I've made style changes in the History section, I'd agree that it still needs work:
Other issues throughout the article need resolution, but my time is such that I can't really concentrate on them right now. My apologies.
All the best to everyone.... Scrawlspacer 11:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Talking about Eyebrow Cottage: "It was built in Cross Street, which at the time was a separate village from Sale."
Was the street a village in its own right, or was it in another village? If it was in another village, then what was that village called? -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed in the Transportation section that the trams leave every few minutes during the 'day-time'. Could someone please verify the actual hours? Day-time is relative to your position on the globe, as well as the time of year. It is not an acceptable explanation for the operating hours of the trams, especially not in an encylopedia. Thanks. justice 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It's my opinion that the recent edits to the History section have done nothing to improve the quality of this article; quite the reverse.
I've just picked out a few examples, but it seems to me that the net effect of this recent copyedit is to jeopardise this article's GA status. The History section could certainly have stood some improvement, but I don't think this was it. I'd suggest reverting the whole damn lot and starting again. Anyone else have an opinion on this? -- Malleus Fatuarum 22:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
As a non-native of the region and of England, I feel the graphic and the written description of Sale's location don't quite jibe. It's hard to visualize where Sale really is in relation to all the information about its surround. I also feel as if it would be very helpful to the article to add a graphic/map of Sale itself, with its divisions.-- Scrawlspacer 07:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've pruned the External links section, because it was becoming a link farm in my view. External links ought to be rather few, and what few there are ought to elaborate on the subject of the article. -- Malleus Fatuarum 17:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I just wondered how folk felt about putting the town hall image in the lead rather than the pub/canal image. I personally think it is of a more befitting quality, but wanted to test the water here first. -- Jza84 | Talk 19:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In the lead it says "However, transportation improvements – notably the 1765 completion of the Sale section of the Bridgewater Canal and the 1849 opening of Sale's first railway station – transformed it into a commuter town for Manchester workers. It remains such for many Sale residents, who have seen the town economy shift to its current focus on retail, real estate and business services." First of all, I'm not sure but I don't think it's correct to start a sentence with "However" and secondly, it's not clear what the focus of the economy has moved from, as the description given earlier is that it was a farming and agricultural area that became a commuter town.
The first mention of Ashton on Mersey is in the history section where it says "A 4th century Roman coin hoard of 46 coins was discovered in Ashton upon Mersey". It then goes on to describe the origins of the name "Ashton" but I was confused as to what the relevance of this was, because by that point there had been no explanation of what the relationship was between Ashton on Mersey and Sale. In fact this isn't explained until later on in the governance section.
"amongst the clients was Sir George Booth who's family would later become Earls of Stamford" I'm not sure what the relevance is of this as there is no further mention of him. Also, wasn't he a buyer rather than a client, and which bit of land did he buy?
"An early 20th century booklet was published detailing a medieval priory in Sale, however there was no such priory and no religious order owned any land in the township" What was the booklet called and shouldn't the sentence read something like "no other researchers have ever found any evidence of..." as maybe the writer of the booklet had evidence that no-one else has seen.
"they began repairing Crossford Bridge and sent a small force across the bridge into Sale and Altrincham in an effort to deceive the government's intelligence into thinking they would be heading to Chester" You can give false intelligence or you can deceive the people gaining intelligence but you can't deceive the intelligence itself unless there was a government department called "Intelligence", in which case it should be capitalised.
"A last resort of employment was the work house; Sale was part of the Altrincham Union which ran the nearest work house" I don't think "a last resort of employment" makes any sense really, and also, where was the work house that's being referred to - in Altrincham or Sale?
In the bit about the enclosure of Sale Moor it starts of with troops assembling on Sale Moor, then the next sentence describes it as "a 300 acre piece of wasteland known as Sale Moor" - which seems to be back to front as the explanation should have been in the previous sentence. The next sentence then talks about the people who had worked the moor - which seems to suggest that it wasn't wasteland but agricultural land. If it was described as such in the reference, then maybe it should be in inverted commas as it was probably called that as a justification for the enclosure.
What was the name of the first cinema?
I've edited the governance section so it flows a bit better. It now says:
"Sale formed a civil parish in 1866. With adoption of the Local Government Act 1894, the parish later that year became the Sale Urban District in the administrative county of Cheshire. Ashton upon Mersey also became an urban district, the two merged in 1930 and in 1935 it became a municipal borough. After the Local Government Act 1972 abolished all municipal boroughs as administrative entities, having been a part of Cheshire since the county's creation, Sale became part of the newly created metropolitan borough of Trafford in Greater Manchester in 1974."
However, it's not clear when either Sale or Ashton on Mersey became an urban district, as they could have adopted the act any time after 1894 - assuming it actually came into force thst year. Also, what was the "it" called that became a municipal borough in 1930?
Demography "Making Sale the middle class town it is today" I think this is too POV as middle class and working class don't mean much any more and the reference only refers to class 1-5, no mention of working or middle class. Richerman ( talk) 12:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Richerman for some useful input and giving pointers on where I can tighten up the article. I hope I've addressed all your concerns. Nev1 ( talk) 18:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
A generally very informative article, before I make any edits to a GA that clearly has a lot of input I would meekly suggest the following. I could correct the minor issues myself but will concentrate on the more important things:
1. Particularly in the history section, the article reads sometimes like a list of things that happened, with little to join this history up. I would start this section with a short preamble about what history there is, before moving onto the pre-history and Roman sections.
The first 4 sentences in the first para of the history section could be re-written, for instance the sentence about the "roman activity" could perhaps be better placed after the line about the roman road, and before the hoard of 46 coins. I think the pre-history sentence should better lead onto the Roman history. The Roman Road and association with the A56 needs explaining, at the moment this is in the Transport section - should be in History instead.
The article just introduces Ashton-upon-Mersey without explanation - while I know where it is (I live in Flixton), I don't think the reader will know what it is, or why it is relevant.
I think the history section could do with subsection into specific ranges of dates. This might help the reader distinguish between for instance, the paragraph about the origin of the name, and the paragraph about medieval history. Latter history, cinema, WW2, M63 - all seem a little bit indistinct compared to the breadth of information pre-industrialisation.
An early 20th century booklet was published detailing a medieval priory in Sale, however there was no such priory and no religious order owned any land in the township. - consider moving this to the Religion section?
The Bridgewater Canal definitely needs a subsection as it is introduced in the lead as a defining factor in the population and purpose of the town. Its too important not to have this. Perhaps consider combining the canal with the railway.
The Manchester, South Junction and Altrincham Railway (MSJ&AR) opened in 1849,[27] and was used by the middle classes as a commuter town - doesn't read correctly.
Enclosure - were the landowners in Sale, or where they landowners of land in Sale?
2. Cross Street - a separate village - how can a street be a village?
3. Transport - history section says canal opened in 1765, transport says 1766.
Any thoughts on the above? Parrot of Doom ( talk) 18:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
---
"On the night of 23/24 December much of Manchester suffered heavy bombing" - 23rd and 24th, or 23rd 'or' 24th? Parrot of Doom ( talk) 11:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of the Governance is a little thin, and I'll try to expand that in the next day or so. However, something's bothering me:
Doesn't the rural districts? From the sentence here I'm being led to believe that one Sale urban district was merged into another, neighbouring Sale urban district, which must be a typo. -- Jza84 | Talk 03:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I want to add something along the lines of "Members were elected to the local board by the towns ratepayers. A household had one vote for every £10 of rateable value" to the governance section, but I'm not sure if "rateable value" is a very clear term. Any suggestions for a better phrase/explanation? Nev1 ( talk) 03:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Doing some investigation of turnpiked roads around here, I found this - between 'Altringham' and 'Crossford Bridge' - latterly, Washway Road through Sale. Crossford Bridge may be where Washway road crosses the Mersey. source here, unfortunately I know not yet of a better source. Worth consideration for this article though. I really want to create a list of turnpikes throughout GM. Parrot of Doom Parrot of Doom ( talk) 21:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned, above, that I might be able to dig something out about the origins of the name of Sale. I've now located my copy of the correct volume of "The place names of Cheshire" and got the information. I'm not sure how or where to integrate the material into the article as it now is, or even whether it merits inclusion, and so I'm including it here to allow a more informed decision about the issues.
I hope some of the above is useful. The Dodgson books are quite useful in sourcing place name meanings and variants of the name. They also include various very old field-names and river names, and so can be used if thought useful for more varied material about places. I hope this helps. DDStretch (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I've created this article for a few bits and pieces in GM, and thought you might like to link to it somehow. Page xiv (for the map) in here should be adequate for a reference. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 01:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
"As a result, those who had used the land as pasture on a small scale were left without a source of income and had to look for work elsewhere, such as in the city or work houses.[22]" I've removed the preceding statement, which was right after the explanation of the inclosure of Sale Moor, because it doesn't seem significant. It was a very small number of people who used the area as pasture because it was pretty poor land, and this can be seen in the population figures between 180 and 1811 which increase on a similar scale to the following decade. I thought I should mention it here though in case anyone disagrees. Nev1 ( talk) 23:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
There is conflicting information here. The Bridgewater Canal article states that the first part of the Runcorn extension was opened in 1767, that it was completed throughout in 1776, and connected to the Mersey in 1773 (via a staircase of locks). The Sale article however states the canal extension was completed in 1765 and that the purpose was to send coal to the river mouth. I think the 'send coal to the river mouth' should be removed, as this is only really accurate when discussing the original canal between Worsley and Manchester, and I think the 1765 is either wrong, or is the date that the canal reached Sale and filled with water to that point (no sense having a dry channel for all those years pending completion). I won't edit this because I cannot see the sources already used in the Sale article, but I'd be more inclined to trust the Bridgewater article on this point. User:Peter I. Vardy is the person who can confirm all this for certain. Also, a minor point, but I think it would read better if the Cross Street info was separated from the canal info. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 15:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
friendsofworthingtonpark has a photo of a plaque describing her gift of funds, so it's probably OK to include mention of her. Must resist any Noel Coward jokes, must resist ... Mr Stephen ( talk) 22:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The article states "followed in 1931 by ... the electrification of the entire line, in one of the first such projects outside of South East England". Whilst I don't doubt the date, it does suggest that the earliest scheme was not much earlier than 1931. In fact there had been electrified railways in the North for well over twenty years:
-- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); there is a scale cross-section of the Bury line conductor rail on p.173, and on p.174 there is a diagram showing how this was mounted on the sleepers via insulators, and protected against accidental personal contact.I don't know if it's that notable but Brogden Terrace appears to be a Conservation Area (United Kingdom). I found this out while looking around the interactive planning map, here. There don't appear to be that many of these areas north of Altrincham, in Trafford - Flixton village is one, Ashton upon Mersey (near the church) is another, Barton Swing Bridge and Longford Park. Parrot of Doom 00:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The word is used and defined in the introductory section, but not (that I can see) in the history section. I don't see it in any of the references. If a reference exists, it might be a good idea to put the word in Wictionary; it isn't there now. Also, it seems to me that logically it should be "girthweb", but of course English often isn't logical. Terry Thorgaard ( talk) 19:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.
Was hoping to find some explanation of the "Washway Road" placename - there was a Wash Lane a little further down what used to be Chester Road and the area tends to have boggy origins. No luck. Delahays ( talk) 18:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Demography still at 2001 census. Suspect other sections like education might be outdated now too. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 18:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the census, no matter what year, the basis should be right. The population of 134000+ does not apply to the town, traditional boundary or anything else of a similar nature, but to a built-up area subdivision which includes the Northenden and (huge) Wythenshawe areas of the city of Manchester. Calling this swathe "Sale" is someone's idea of appropriate labelling but is totally misleading. "Sale and Wythenshawe" would make more sense. The truth of this may be confirmed by looking at Greater Manchester Built-up Area and in the ranked table, following the reference (8) in the Extent column and choosing the large map option. 2A00:23C6:AA07:4C00:1BC:30C6:64EC:1C50 ( talk) 20:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Does anybody on this crappy site read these additions? It's now a month since I posted the above suggestion for correction, and fuckall has been done about it. The worst of it is, the wrong population figure for Sale appears all over the place, possibly copied from here as an "authoritative source" (there's a laugh). The shame of it is, the big cheeses round here think that it's the dog's bollocks and are so tied up in arcane bureaucratic editorial procedures, they have no inkling of the dire reputation Wikipedia has among those for whom accuracy is number one. 2A00:23C6:AA07:4C00:A547:C36D:782C:93B3 ( talk) 19:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
History stops in 1970, needs updating for 2021 census, some cn issues. ( t · c) buidhe 04:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The population is the opening paragraph is given as 134,022. That is surely incorrect. That figure was entered in 2016 and has never changed, and is inaccuratley referenced.
But what is the population of Sale? I've never been there. I do know that precise boundaries of places within cities can be difficult to agree upon. People have different views and long memories. Nevertheless, I thought I'd give it a try. By looking at a few maps (even one from around 1900), I think the best way forward might be to go with the local aithority electoral wards. (I did consider the M33 postcode, but that's hard to work out the population for and is about postal deliveries not place.) The census in 2021 is the correct basis for the population and can provide link to wards. However, some of the ward names were changed in 2023. The current wards are: Ashton upon Mersey, Manor (previously St Mary's), Sale Central (previously Priory), Sale Moor and Brooklands. I think Trafford Council refers to those together as a single locality called "Central", which I'm deeming to be Sale.
There is a tool at the ONS website where you can find the population by ward (as they were back then). The total population for those four wards was: 54,515. That sounds like a much more resonable figure for Sale than 134,022. I'm going to put that in the article. Seaweed ( talk) 13:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm the writer of the intemperate material above on this precise point, note that my address keeps changing. It's taken more than 18 months for anyone to even notice, let alone respond to, the point I was making. The 134000+ figure referred to a huge swathe of Greater Manchester of which Sale was less than half, as I pointed out. Nothing was done so I tried myself, summing the populations of the five wards making up the historical area of Sale and changing the declared figure to be the total as now shown. What happened? Some idiot reverted the change without justification or even comment, so 134000 came back. I can't remember the clown's name, but someone of Batley comes to mind. You'll understand that I couldn't be arsed to have another go, and that my opinion of Wikipedia's accuracy, reliability and authoritativeness remain as stated previously. 2A00:23C6:AA0D:F501:F840:6337:6E7C:73EE ( talk) 20:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sale, Greater Manchester article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
Sale, Greater Manchester is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 10, 2015. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Why has the presentation of units been changed from showing miles first to showing kilometres first? Is this some general change that's been proposed for UK articles? Or is it just some tweak to get this article through the FA hoops? -- -- Eric 23:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Where has this change been discussed/agreed? I'm concerned that changes are being made not to improve the quality of the article, but simply to satisfy FA reviewers, most of whom appear to be US based. The objection raised about utility providers, for instance. -- -- Eric 00:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
In which other articles about UK cities/towns/townships/villages/... do kilometres come first? When did you last see a road sign telling you how many kilometres to your destination? -- -- Eric 00:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I had been given to understand that the convention for UK geography articles had been agreed to present miles (km). And that is what the overwhelming majority of the UK articles actually do. If you and and a few others have arbitrarily changed the goalposts for the sake of an "FA" rosette, then you are welcome to your compromised version of wikipedia. -- -- Eric 01:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Then presumably these same FA reviewers are too young to have driven on any road in the UK, where distances are invariably given in miles, not kilometres. And here's another example of the kind of nonsense I'm talking about:
After the arrival of the Bridgewater Canal in 1765 and the railway in 1849, Sale grew into a commuter town for workers in Manchester.
That's a span of 84 years. Is it being suggested that between 1765 and 1849 people were commuting to Manchester by canal? -- -- Eric 19:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Professional writing standards are not set by consensus among unqualified Wikipedia users too old to know what a kilometre is. Epbr123 08:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
As you have no idea what my qualifications are, or my age, then I suggest that in future you try to limit your remarks to the subject being discussed. Which is not me. -- -- Eric 19:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The population of Sale is shown as 134,022. This figure has been replicated elsewhere in tables of towns, such as this one making it more populous that Stockport, Bolton and many other places. However as the boundary clearly shows in the link referenced for this - the 134k includes large parts of Wythenshawe, Northenden etc. I think this figure is misleadingly large. Can anyone provide a more representative value for population of Sale as a town? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.102.98 ( talk) 08:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Apparently people have been commuting from Sale to Manchester since the opening of the Bridgewater Canal, in 1765. I wonder how long it took them to get to their work on these non-existent commuter services?
This article is fast becoming a farce IMO. -- -- Eric 01:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You really are a joker. So in 1766 there was a commuter service between Sale and Manchester along the Bridgewater Canal was there? Do the facts mean nothing to you? -- -- Eric 02:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking through the history of the article it would appear that this inaccuracy arose from a single sentence being split. The orginal statement was "... with the advent of the Bridgwater Canal in 1765 and the railway in 1849 the town flourished, and provided a means of transport for goods as well as people that allowed the wealthy middle classes to live a discreet distance from their work place, yet close enough to be convenient." This was perhaps initially a bit misleading but expanding the sentence led to the implication that the canal was used as a form of commuter transport which would be unfeasible. Bearing this in mind I intend to rework the sentence and any other discrepencies.
For the record, I think Eric's gripe was with "The canal enabled Sale to develop into a commuter town for middle-class merchants working in Manchester." Nev1 12:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's in dispute is it that Sale grew as a commuter town? It certain isn't by me, anyway, only when that happened and why. My concern was the apparent attribution of that growth to the arrival of the canal in 1765, rather than the railway in 1849. Sale's population appears to have started to rise significantly between 1851 and 1861, after the arrival of the railway in other words. [1] -- -- Eric 19:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to have attracted some strong editors, but there appears to be little quality discussion on how best to improve this article.
Before making some larger changes, perhaps we can make some suggestions here as to what we'd like to see on this article, and how we can best do this? Jza84 15:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what the talk page is for afterall. I would like to suggestion the following:
Objections? Thoughts? Jza84 15:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that comment of yours pretty much sums up my reservations about this whole FA process. It ought not to be a fight, it ought to be a collaborative process; there ought to be clearly established criteria, as independent as is possible from personal hobby horses or personal agendas.
For what it's worth, I'm in complete agreement with Jza84. If geography isn't about the division of land, then what is it about? I'd be quite happy to see the "Geography and administration" section title changed to "Geography", so long as there were still subsections for things like "Civic history" and "Political divisions". It seems to me that hanging on to historical boundaries causes a great deal of confusion in many articles. The population of Sale for instance. Is that the town of Sale (if so what are its boundaries) or the area designated as Sale by Trafford Council? -- -- Eric 22:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
They are most certainly not the same thing. -- -- Eric 00:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Because the boundaries of the town called Sale were the boundaries of the municipal borough of Sale. The boundaries of the present day area called Sale are whatever Trafford decides they are from time to time. -- Malleus Fatuarum 19:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
"Sale sits in the Mersey Valley..." Does it? The article says that Sale lies about 1km south of the Mersey, arguably within the river's floodplain, but not its valley. -- Malleus Fatuarum 19:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
That source says it's both "in the Mersey Valley" and on "the edge of the valley". Can't be both surely? -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
All roads in Sale running north south will go right up to the river. That has nothing to to do with the river valley. The Mersey has been heavily canalised throughout most of Greater Manchester. What's left of the river valley is the area immediately around the the river. And the town of Sale is about 1km away from that. There might possibly be an area a hundred yards or so wide on the Sale bank of the river that could be legitimately be considered to be in the Mersey Valley, but certainly not the town of Sale itself. -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The Mersey through Greater Manchester has been canalised, as I said. -- Malleus Fatuarum 00:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
As the boundary between Sale and Stretford is the River Mersey, 1km south of Stretford is 1km south of the Mersey. -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The altitude data for Sale, currently unreferenced, seems to have been taken from the same source. Another source ( http://www.fallingrain.com/world/UK/0/Sale.html) gives the data as 170 feet (51 metres) above sea level, not 98 feet (30 metres) as claimed. -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's anymore I can do for this article. It needs more detail in the history section, which I won't be able to provide as I don't live nearby. Epbr123 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Although I've made style changes in the History section, I'd agree that it still needs work:
Other issues throughout the article need resolution, but my time is such that I can't really concentrate on them right now. My apologies.
All the best to everyone.... Scrawlspacer 11:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Talking about Eyebrow Cottage: "It was built in Cross Street, which at the time was a separate village from Sale."
Was the street a village in its own right, or was it in another village? If it was in another village, then what was that village called? -- Malleus Fatuarum 23:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed in the Transportation section that the trams leave every few minutes during the 'day-time'. Could someone please verify the actual hours? Day-time is relative to your position on the globe, as well as the time of year. It is not an acceptable explanation for the operating hours of the trams, especially not in an encylopedia. Thanks. justice 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It's my opinion that the recent edits to the History section have done nothing to improve the quality of this article; quite the reverse.
I've just picked out a few examples, but it seems to me that the net effect of this recent copyedit is to jeopardise this article's GA status. The History section could certainly have stood some improvement, but I don't think this was it. I'd suggest reverting the whole damn lot and starting again. Anyone else have an opinion on this? -- Malleus Fatuarum 22:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
As a non-native of the region and of England, I feel the graphic and the written description of Sale's location don't quite jibe. It's hard to visualize where Sale really is in relation to all the information about its surround. I also feel as if it would be very helpful to the article to add a graphic/map of Sale itself, with its divisions.-- Scrawlspacer 07:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've pruned the External links section, because it was becoming a link farm in my view. External links ought to be rather few, and what few there are ought to elaborate on the subject of the article. -- Malleus Fatuarum 17:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I just wondered how folk felt about putting the town hall image in the lead rather than the pub/canal image. I personally think it is of a more befitting quality, but wanted to test the water here first. -- Jza84 | Talk 19:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In the lead it says "However, transportation improvements – notably the 1765 completion of the Sale section of the Bridgewater Canal and the 1849 opening of Sale's first railway station – transformed it into a commuter town for Manchester workers. It remains such for many Sale residents, who have seen the town economy shift to its current focus on retail, real estate and business services." First of all, I'm not sure but I don't think it's correct to start a sentence with "However" and secondly, it's not clear what the focus of the economy has moved from, as the description given earlier is that it was a farming and agricultural area that became a commuter town.
The first mention of Ashton on Mersey is in the history section where it says "A 4th century Roman coin hoard of 46 coins was discovered in Ashton upon Mersey". It then goes on to describe the origins of the name "Ashton" but I was confused as to what the relevance of this was, because by that point there had been no explanation of what the relationship was between Ashton on Mersey and Sale. In fact this isn't explained until later on in the governance section.
"amongst the clients was Sir George Booth who's family would later become Earls of Stamford" I'm not sure what the relevance is of this as there is no further mention of him. Also, wasn't he a buyer rather than a client, and which bit of land did he buy?
"An early 20th century booklet was published detailing a medieval priory in Sale, however there was no such priory and no religious order owned any land in the township" What was the booklet called and shouldn't the sentence read something like "no other researchers have ever found any evidence of..." as maybe the writer of the booklet had evidence that no-one else has seen.
"they began repairing Crossford Bridge and sent a small force across the bridge into Sale and Altrincham in an effort to deceive the government's intelligence into thinking they would be heading to Chester" You can give false intelligence or you can deceive the people gaining intelligence but you can't deceive the intelligence itself unless there was a government department called "Intelligence", in which case it should be capitalised.
"A last resort of employment was the work house; Sale was part of the Altrincham Union which ran the nearest work house" I don't think "a last resort of employment" makes any sense really, and also, where was the work house that's being referred to - in Altrincham or Sale?
In the bit about the enclosure of Sale Moor it starts of with troops assembling on Sale Moor, then the next sentence describes it as "a 300 acre piece of wasteland known as Sale Moor" - which seems to be back to front as the explanation should have been in the previous sentence. The next sentence then talks about the people who had worked the moor - which seems to suggest that it wasn't wasteland but agricultural land. If it was described as such in the reference, then maybe it should be in inverted commas as it was probably called that as a justification for the enclosure.
What was the name of the first cinema?
I've edited the governance section so it flows a bit better. It now says:
"Sale formed a civil parish in 1866. With adoption of the Local Government Act 1894, the parish later that year became the Sale Urban District in the administrative county of Cheshire. Ashton upon Mersey also became an urban district, the two merged in 1930 and in 1935 it became a municipal borough. After the Local Government Act 1972 abolished all municipal boroughs as administrative entities, having been a part of Cheshire since the county's creation, Sale became part of the newly created metropolitan borough of Trafford in Greater Manchester in 1974."
However, it's not clear when either Sale or Ashton on Mersey became an urban district, as they could have adopted the act any time after 1894 - assuming it actually came into force thst year. Also, what was the "it" called that became a municipal borough in 1930?
Demography "Making Sale the middle class town it is today" I think this is too POV as middle class and working class don't mean much any more and the reference only refers to class 1-5, no mention of working or middle class. Richerman ( talk) 12:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Richerman for some useful input and giving pointers on where I can tighten up the article. I hope I've addressed all your concerns. Nev1 ( talk) 18:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
A generally very informative article, before I make any edits to a GA that clearly has a lot of input I would meekly suggest the following. I could correct the minor issues myself but will concentrate on the more important things:
1. Particularly in the history section, the article reads sometimes like a list of things that happened, with little to join this history up. I would start this section with a short preamble about what history there is, before moving onto the pre-history and Roman sections.
The first 4 sentences in the first para of the history section could be re-written, for instance the sentence about the "roman activity" could perhaps be better placed after the line about the roman road, and before the hoard of 46 coins. I think the pre-history sentence should better lead onto the Roman history. The Roman Road and association with the A56 needs explaining, at the moment this is in the Transport section - should be in History instead.
The article just introduces Ashton-upon-Mersey without explanation - while I know where it is (I live in Flixton), I don't think the reader will know what it is, or why it is relevant.
I think the history section could do with subsection into specific ranges of dates. This might help the reader distinguish between for instance, the paragraph about the origin of the name, and the paragraph about medieval history. Latter history, cinema, WW2, M63 - all seem a little bit indistinct compared to the breadth of information pre-industrialisation.
An early 20th century booklet was published detailing a medieval priory in Sale, however there was no such priory and no religious order owned any land in the township. - consider moving this to the Religion section?
The Bridgewater Canal definitely needs a subsection as it is introduced in the lead as a defining factor in the population and purpose of the town. Its too important not to have this. Perhaps consider combining the canal with the railway.
The Manchester, South Junction and Altrincham Railway (MSJ&AR) opened in 1849,[27] and was used by the middle classes as a commuter town - doesn't read correctly.
Enclosure - were the landowners in Sale, or where they landowners of land in Sale?
2. Cross Street - a separate village - how can a street be a village?
3. Transport - history section says canal opened in 1765, transport says 1766.
Any thoughts on the above? Parrot of Doom ( talk) 18:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
---
"On the night of 23/24 December much of Manchester suffered heavy bombing" - 23rd and 24th, or 23rd 'or' 24th? Parrot of Doom ( talk) 11:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of the Governance is a little thin, and I'll try to expand that in the next day or so. However, something's bothering me:
Doesn't the rural districts? From the sentence here I'm being led to believe that one Sale urban district was merged into another, neighbouring Sale urban district, which must be a typo. -- Jza84 | Talk 03:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I want to add something along the lines of "Members were elected to the local board by the towns ratepayers. A household had one vote for every £10 of rateable value" to the governance section, but I'm not sure if "rateable value" is a very clear term. Any suggestions for a better phrase/explanation? Nev1 ( talk) 03:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Doing some investigation of turnpiked roads around here, I found this - between 'Altringham' and 'Crossford Bridge' - latterly, Washway Road through Sale. Crossford Bridge may be where Washway road crosses the Mersey. source here, unfortunately I know not yet of a better source. Worth consideration for this article though. I really want to create a list of turnpikes throughout GM. Parrot of Doom Parrot of Doom ( talk) 21:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned, above, that I might be able to dig something out about the origins of the name of Sale. I've now located my copy of the correct volume of "The place names of Cheshire" and got the information. I'm not sure how or where to integrate the material into the article as it now is, or even whether it merits inclusion, and so I'm including it here to allow a more informed decision about the issues.
I hope some of the above is useful. The Dodgson books are quite useful in sourcing place name meanings and variants of the name. They also include various very old field-names and river names, and so can be used if thought useful for more varied material about places. I hope this helps. DDStretch (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I've created this article for a few bits and pieces in GM, and thought you might like to link to it somehow. Page xiv (for the map) in here should be adequate for a reference. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 01:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
"As a result, those who had used the land as pasture on a small scale were left without a source of income and had to look for work elsewhere, such as in the city or work houses.[22]" I've removed the preceding statement, which was right after the explanation of the inclosure of Sale Moor, because it doesn't seem significant. It was a very small number of people who used the area as pasture because it was pretty poor land, and this can be seen in the population figures between 180 and 1811 which increase on a similar scale to the following decade. I thought I should mention it here though in case anyone disagrees. Nev1 ( talk) 23:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
There is conflicting information here. The Bridgewater Canal article states that the first part of the Runcorn extension was opened in 1767, that it was completed throughout in 1776, and connected to the Mersey in 1773 (via a staircase of locks). The Sale article however states the canal extension was completed in 1765 and that the purpose was to send coal to the river mouth. I think the 'send coal to the river mouth' should be removed, as this is only really accurate when discussing the original canal between Worsley and Manchester, and I think the 1765 is either wrong, or is the date that the canal reached Sale and filled with water to that point (no sense having a dry channel for all those years pending completion). I won't edit this because I cannot see the sources already used in the Sale article, but I'd be more inclined to trust the Bridgewater article on this point. User:Peter I. Vardy is the person who can confirm all this for certain. Also, a minor point, but I think it would read better if the Cross Street info was separated from the canal info. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 15:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
friendsofworthingtonpark has a photo of a plaque describing her gift of funds, so it's probably OK to include mention of her. Must resist any Noel Coward jokes, must resist ... Mr Stephen ( talk) 22:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The article states "followed in 1931 by ... the electrification of the entire line, in one of the first such projects outside of South East England". Whilst I don't doubt the date, it does suggest that the earliest scheme was not much earlier than 1931. In fact there had been electrified railways in the North for well over twenty years:
-- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); there is a scale cross-section of the Bury line conductor rail on p.173, and on p.174 there is a diagram showing how this was mounted on the sleepers via insulators, and protected against accidental personal contact.I don't know if it's that notable but Brogden Terrace appears to be a Conservation Area (United Kingdom). I found this out while looking around the interactive planning map, here. There don't appear to be that many of these areas north of Altrincham, in Trafford - Flixton village is one, Ashton upon Mersey (near the church) is another, Barton Swing Bridge and Longford Park. Parrot of Doom 00:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The word is used and defined in the introductory section, but not (that I can see) in the history section. I don't see it in any of the references. If a reference exists, it might be a good idea to put the word in Wictionary; it isn't there now. Also, it seems to me that logically it should be "girthweb", but of course English often isn't logical. Terry Thorgaard ( talk) 19:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.
Was hoping to find some explanation of the "Washway Road" placename - there was a Wash Lane a little further down what used to be Chester Road and the area tends to have boggy origins. No luck. Delahays ( talk) 18:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Demography still at 2001 census. Suspect other sections like education might be outdated now too. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 18:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the census, no matter what year, the basis should be right. The population of 134000+ does not apply to the town, traditional boundary or anything else of a similar nature, but to a built-up area subdivision which includes the Northenden and (huge) Wythenshawe areas of the city of Manchester. Calling this swathe "Sale" is someone's idea of appropriate labelling but is totally misleading. "Sale and Wythenshawe" would make more sense. The truth of this may be confirmed by looking at Greater Manchester Built-up Area and in the ranked table, following the reference (8) in the Extent column and choosing the large map option. 2A00:23C6:AA07:4C00:1BC:30C6:64EC:1C50 ( talk) 20:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Does anybody on this crappy site read these additions? It's now a month since I posted the above suggestion for correction, and fuckall has been done about it. The worst of it is, the wrong population figure for Sale appears all over the place, possibly copied from here as an "authoritative source" (there's a laugh). The shame of it is, the big cheeses round here think that it's the dog's bollocks and are so tied up in arcane bureaucratic editorial procedures, they have no inkling of the dire reputation Wikipedia has among those for whom accuracy is number one. 2A00:23C6:AA07:4C00:A547:C36D:782C:93B3 ( talk) 19:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
History stops in 1970, needs updating for 2021 census, some cn issues. ( t · c) buidhe 04:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The population is the opening paragraph is given as 134,022. That is surely incorrect. That figure was entered in 2016 and has never changed, and is inaccuratley referenced.
But what is the population of Sale? I've never been there. I do know that precise boundaries of places within cities can be difficult to agree upon. People have different views and long memories. Nevertheless, I thought I'd give it a try. By looking at a few maps (even one from around 1900), I think the best way forward might be to go with the local aithority electoral wards. (I did consider the M33 postcode, but that's hard to work out the population for and is about postal deliveries not place.) The census in 2021 is the correct basis for the population and can provide link to wards. However, some of the ward names were changed in 2023. The current wards are: Ashton upon Mersey, Manor (previously St Mary's), Sale Central (previously Priory), Sale Moor and Brooklands. I think Trafford Council refers to those together as a single locality called "Central", which I'm deeming to be Sale.
There is a tool at the ONS website where you can find the population by ward (as they were back then). The total population for those four wards was: 54,515. That sounds like a much more resonable figure for Sale than 134,022. I'm going to put that in the article. Seaweed ( talk) 13:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm the writer of the intemperate material above on this precise point, note that my address keeps changing. It's taken more than 18 months for anyone to even notice, let alone respond to, the point I was making. The 134000+ figure referred to a huge swathe of Greater Manchester of which Sale was less than half, as I pointed out. Nothing was done so I tried myself, summing the populations of the five wards making up the historical area of Sale and changing the declared figure to be the total as now shown. What happened? Some idiot reverted the change without justification or even comment, so 134000 came back. I can't remember the clown's name, but someone of Batley comes to mind. You'll understand that I couldn't be arsed to have another go, and that my opinion of Wikipedia's accuracy, reliability and authoritativeness remain as stated previously. 2A00:23C6:AA0D:F501:F840:6337:6E7C:73EE ( talk) 20:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)