Talk:Sale, Greater Manchester

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm a metricist, but would recommend using imperial measurements first with the metric conversion as the supplimentary converted unit. This approach is taken throughout the UK, and on UK geography featured articles. Miles are used as a geographic frame of reference for distance in the UK for driving, and in most gazetteers and other encyclopedias. Jza84 00:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Units changed

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, it's is completely wrong and has been misstated since 2016. I'll start a new section at the bottom.Seaweed (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: 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)
replies: text: *That's quite right. The article was suggesting that the arrival of the canal in 1765 somehow kickstarted Sale's use as a commuter town, whereas Epbr123's reference is to the canal being used for that purpose "in the 1870s". But, for the record, the material has now been rewritten, satisfactorily so far as I'm concerned. ---- Eric 17:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *What was the reason for the growth of the town after the building of the canal and before the opening of the railway? Epbr123 18:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you being rhetorical or is that a genuine question? Nev1 18:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Genuine qustion. Epbr123 18:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since the boats would have only been transporting coal in one direction up the canal it's most likely that trade developed in the other direction. More trade, more markets, more money means more people. I could find out properly if you think it's important? Nev1 18:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could find out why, I think it would be useful to mention. When I first read this article, I was led to believe Sale developed as a commuter town. Now it seems that was incorrect, so the real reason for its development is needed. Epbr123 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sale as a commuter town

message: 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)
replies: text: We finally have an answer for this. The separate village was called Cross Street. Nev1 (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this mean?

message: 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)
replies: text: I've checked and added that information. 'Day-time' is between 7:15am and 18:30pm. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What time is 'day-time'?

message: 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.
*Commuting into Manchester for work became one of the most popular uses of the canal, especially if one could catch the "swift packet"; most popular? Who says so?
*In the years after 1900 ...; does that mean after 1900? If it does, them why not say so?
*... wait for full repairs till 1952; a till is what you put money into, it's not a synonym of until.
*By 1900, though, the railways had largely reduced canal traffic to a trickle; seems to be a comma stutter.
*In 1992 the line was replaced by the Metrolink tram/light rail service; the line wasn't replaced by the Metrolink service, the line is still there and is being used by Metrolink.
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)
thread_title:  Recent edits to the History section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links section 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd been thinking of doing that myself for a while, it's a good idea. I was waiting to get more images for the article so it doesn't look too bare. Nev1 (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I always keep an eye open for Sale, Urmston and Altrincham images at Flickr and geograph, but, they're in short supply. The town hall image isn't ideal, but I think it's a better landmark and a higher quality photograph. I'll keep my eyes open for a suitable image of Altrincham, particularly the market hall, town hall or station clock tower. --Jza84 |  Talk   14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did we get upto with this? --Jza84 |  Talk   01:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: 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. 
:Addressing your first two points, I'll rewrite the lead; I've hardly touched it so far, I prefer to leave it to last so it's not constantly getting rehashed as more material is added to the article. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With Jza's help the lead has been changed (there were other edits in between so ignore the changes other than to the lead). I think it's much better now: without contradictions and importantly it mentions Ashton upon Mersey, stating that before it is now an area of Sale but used to be a separate township. Hopefully this explains why it's included later on in the article. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: He was a buyer, but since - as you pointed out - it didn't seem especially relevant (even the source I read didn't make much of it) so I've removed it. I suppose the only reason for it's inclusion is that the Earls of Stamford were prominent land owners in the area, with land in Altrincham. Nev1 (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I've added some more information on the non-existent priory. The source seems pretty adamant that there was no priory. Nev1 (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Done. Nev1 (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorted. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I wasn't really happy with the first sentence, I couldn't find another source, so I got rid of it. The flow is then a bit better. I reread the bit about enclosure and you're right, there does seem to be a slightly mixed message. I've added the quotation marks as suggested and a little information on what the labourers were doing. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The Palace. Added to article. Nev1 (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: This edit should make it clearer. Nev1 (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not POV as the source (a few links have to be clicked, I'll have to sort that out) says that classes 1 and 2 are middle class and 4 and 5 are working class. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a couple more webpages to the source which contain explanations of what classes 1 to 5 are. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few niggles 

message: 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.
:I've only added a couple of sentences, taking the opportunity of introducing Ashton upon Mersey and explaining why it's mentioned in an article about Sale. Nev1 (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the bit about the A56 to the history section as suggested and removed the sentence about Roman activity since it was superfluous. In attempt to improve the change from prehistory to Roman I've replace the Roman activity sentence with this :"There is no other archaeological evidence of human activity in the area until the Roman period". Nev1 (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reads a lot better now, much nicer flow Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: It's been mentioned in the lead, although given your comments about changing the history section so it flows rather than reads like a list, I'll probably add some more. Nev1 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm undecided about this as I'm not convinced the history section is quite long enough to be divided. Also, I'm not sure what to call the sections. Nev1 (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might find some ideas in History_of_england.  I have often found that introducing more sections to an article just inspires one to write more :)  It's certainly been responsible for some serious brain fade for me of late! Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went for the three most general headings I could think of. It looks ok, although a bit weighted towards modern history, but that's just the nature of the available information. Nev1 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Good point, done. Nev1 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: You read an old version of the lead (it's since been overhauled). The canal really wasn't that important to the town and the lead has been changed to reflect this. Nev1 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Copy edited, now reads "The Manchester, South Junction and Altrincham Railway (MSJ&AR) opened in 1849,[27] and led to the middle classes using Sale as a commuter town". Nev1 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 'north–south through Sale with a station at Sale,[26] which was known as Sale Moor until 1856' is a bit of a complicated sentence, you might want to change the wording there - perhaps "nth-sth thru trafford with a station known as 'sale moor' in the town" or similar?  Just to break it up. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It now reads "It ran north–south through Sale with one station called Sale Moor in the town;[26] the station changed its name to just Sale in 1856." Nev1 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The village was called Cross Street and was based around Cross Street, it's rather a sticky one to explain. If only they'd given the damn thing a different name there wouldn't be a problem. Nev1 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense now, I thought it was just a typo when I read it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The history section says the Sale section of the canal was complete in 1765 but opened in 1776. The transport section just says it was open in 1776. Nev1 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am working on the Bridgewater Canal article now, as I find more information I will bear this page in mind and update accordingly.   Similarly, if you find any information on wharfs at Sale, or canal related industry, please let me know or edit the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anything as exciting as wharves were built in Sale, but if I come across anything to do with the Bridgewater Canal I'll let you know. Nev1 (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Some good points, especially about the flow of the history section. Thanks for your input. Nev1 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: 23rd going into 24th, I've changed the article so it reads "... the night of 23 December ..." Nev1 (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My observations 

message: 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)
replies: text: The Archaeology of Trafford has a brief mention of Trafford's turnpikes, I'll take a look. Nev1 (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added something to the article. Nev1 (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turnpike roads 

message: 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.
*The name Sale means "At the Willow", and an early form of the name that occurs before 1216 is Sala. Page 5 of: 
*Since Ashton on Mersey was subsumed under Sale (though it now has its own article), it may be worth adding something about that name, either in this article, or in its own article: Ashton means Ash tree farm, upon Mersey is the obvious meaning, It occurs in more forms than does Sale. The names Ayston (1260), Asseton (1287), Assecheton (1310) (with the suffix iuxta Merse), and Aston(1345) (with the suffix super Marcum) all occur. The suffixes iuxta Merse and super Merseybanke occur with a variety of forms of the first name, and sometimes Mers(s)ebank(e) and Mersay Bonke occur on their own as the name of the place. (page 3 of 
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)
thread_title: Origins of the name

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Bucklow (hundred)]] 

message: "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)
thread_title: Copyediting

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mrs Worthington 

message: 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)
replies: text: I had no idea and from that map there's also a larger area around Ashton Old Hall to consider. Could use the map as a reference of this but I can't find anything on why they're conservation areas so at the moment any addition couldn't be much more than a sentence. Nev1 (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking on Google Streetview I'd say it's because that little group of terraces is extremely pretty :)  I've driven past it hundreds of times and had no idea it was there. Parrot of Doom 00:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation area 

message: 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)
replies: text: Garth-web has an OED entry although it seems to be archaic.  It's a compound of garth - Girth (tack) and web.  There are alternate spellings but if a link is needed I'd suggest Girth (tack). Parrot of Doom 20:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  garthweb 

message: Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.
:  Bfpage |leave a message  14:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations!

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Demography still at 2001 census. Suspect other sections like education might be outdated now too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see any specific protection on the article so you should be able to edit it yourself — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 20:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So I did edit the population figure and removed the designation "large". Someone has reverted the change, presumably without taking the point that the 134000 figure applies to an area of much more than is within the traditional/historic Sale boundary, to wit including a large slice of the south of the City of Manchester, a different local authority. That's what I call mindless, in keeping with my views above starting "Does anybody". Accurate? Authoritative? An absolute joke. →2A00:23C6:AA07:4C00:4872:815D:407B:5E42 (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs update 

message: History stops in 1970, needs updating for 2021 census, some cn issues. (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020|FA sweeps]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Population