Talk:Sale, Greater Manchester

Units changed

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)

• Both. Epbr123 23:40, 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)

• I have no intention of adding utility providers. The UK, unlike the US, officially uses the metric system so km comes first. Epbr123 00:18, 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)

• The FA ones. Epbr123 01:00, 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)

• The overwhelming majority of the UK articles do not represent the best of Wikipedia. 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)

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)

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)

Demographics

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)

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)

Sale as a commuter town

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)

• It says after 1765, not in 1765. I am getting pretty pissed off with you. Stop harrassing other editors while they're trying to improve articles. I know its jealously and its making you look pathetic. Epbr123 01:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Are you in full possession of your faculties? If so, please try to address the questions that are asked, about commuting between Sale and Manchester in the 18th century. ---- Eric 02:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• It says after 1765, not in 1765. I am getting pretty pissed off with you. Stop harrassing other editors while they're trying to improve articles. I know its jealously and its making you look pathetic. Epbr123 01:23, 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)

• • I have no interest in what you have to say. I have contributed to five featured articles and four good articles. Your contributions have resulted in a poorly sourced and badly structured Stretford article. I have the utmost respect for most FA reviewers, but you are not one of them. Try picking fights with someone of your own level of experience. Epbr123 11:55, 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)

• 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)

• 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)

Are you being rhetorical or is that a genuine question? Nev1 18:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Genuine qustion. Epbr123 18:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

• The canal was used for commuting at some time. The Salecommunityweb source states "In the 1870s there were about 400 horses working on the canal enabling Sale residents to take the 'swift packet' to work in Manchester." Epbr123 12:35, 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)

• That appears to be correct. If only you'd pointed that out earlier. Those figures need to be in the article. Epbr123 19:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Work together?

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)

• Good idea. Epbr123 15:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what the talk page is for afterall. I would like to suggestion the following:

• Drop "Administration" from the first section title - civic history is part of human geography, and thus Geography - it reads like a Geography section would.
• Break up the "History" section. We may need some more material and expand the section before we do this.
• The lead seems overly complicated - particularly references to the Bridgewater Canal (linked twice), can we sum the town up in a more smooth way?
• I'll try to see if we can obtain some higher quality photographs.

Objections? Thoughts? Jza84 15:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• I need more convincing that info about MPs and the council is part of human geography. I would rather Civic history and Political divisions be under an Administration section. If the history section gets much longer, we'll get people saying it should be its own article. More is needed about recent history though. Feel free to edit the lead, but make sure it's long enough to summrize the whole article. Also, note that the population is not 52,294; that's what it was at the census. In my opinion, the lead should briefly explain why Sale is no longer in Cheshire. Epbr123 16:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, counties, constituencies, boroughs and wards are all divisions of land, which is what is being discussed in the text; not the councils and MPs. These divisions are human geography. The problem I see is the "traditional counties" folk, who have been my fiercest of opponents during my time on Wikipedia - they'll start to assert (as they used to) that the historic counties are REAL "geography", whilst modern boroughs etc are "administration". Divisions of land are used as a "geographic" frame of reference also. Furthermore, it's long been a convention (albiet, unwritten), to either say "Historically part of X" or "within the historic county boundaries of X" at some point in the lead - saying former counties has been frowned upon and caused many edit wars, strictly speaking it was the Administrative counties of England that were abolished 74. Jza84 21:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll leave it up to you, as long as you're willing to fight off any reviewers that want it changed. Epbr123 21:51, 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)

• "Is that the town of Sale (if so what are its boundaries) or the area designated as Sale by Trafford Council" - they will be the same thing. Epbr123 00:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

They are most certainly not the same thing. ---- Eric 00:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Why? Epbr123 01:02, 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)

• This source says Sale is in the Mersey Valley. The article doesn't say Sale lies about 1km south of the Mersey, it says it lies just to the south the Mersey. Sale lies about 1km south of the Stretford. Epbr123 21:49, 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)

• I'm not sure what it means by "the edge of the valley". If you look on a map, some roads in Sale go right up to the river, therefore at least part of the town will be in the valley. Epbr123 23:15, 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)

• "What's left of the river valley" - has the width of the valley be artificially reduced? What was its width before? Epbr123 23:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Mersey through Greater Manchester has been canalised, as I said. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Mersey Valley probably refers to the valley area before the canalisation. Epbr123 09:00, 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)

I honestly don't think this article was ready for an FA review. It was being pummelled into shape to make it fit, but that wasn't doing the article any favours. But it's already a GA, and in time, given some thought and some work, I'm sure it'll be an FA. But not yet. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The true purpose of nominating articles for FA is to get top quality feedback. We now know what needs to be done to this article. Epbr123 20:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. But that seems to be wasting the limited and valuable time of the reviewers. It was quite apparent what needed to be done to the article to take it to next level. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree once again. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't quite remember you making the same suggestions as the reviewers but again we'll have to agree to disagree. If Nev1 hadn't nominated the article for GA when it wasn't ready, it would still look like [2]. Epbr123 20:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would, perhaps it wouldn't. There's no doubt that the article has improved dramatically, but what's improved it is people working together on it. It's not down to Nev1, or anyone else, to do everything.

And so far as the reviewers are concerned, I'm pretty sure that I agreed with the comments made by Tony1, and I had even commented on the disjointed nature of some of the prose before he did. IIRC I called it a dog's dinner. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good for you. And what about the other reviewers? Epbr123 23:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They will no doubt have their own opinions and are perfectly free to express them. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude but seeing as your main role in this article has been to do the copy-editting, how has it ended up failing the FA review on the grounds of bads prose? Epbr123 23:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you really don't mean to be rude, then may I suggest that you ought to try a little harder not to be rude. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a bit too cruel. Epbr123 00:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

But returning to topic, this is a good article, no question, it'll get better, and it will get FA status. But as it stands it needs some work to get to FA. There are obvious gaps in the history, for instance. Why not try helping to plug those gaps? --Malleus Fatuarum 00:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That was my original comment. I can't help expand the history section as I can't get access to the research material. There aren't many books on Sale in Kent libraries and Sale is quite tricky to Google. Epbr123 00:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We each do what we can, and none of us are employed by wikipedia to write these articles. And so to be persecuted in that the way that it seems to me that I've been persecuted by you, well, I consider that to be totally unreasonable. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hurt your feelings. Epbr123 00:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I've made style changes in the History section, I'd agree that it still needs work:

• It still needs more material.
• It is still very choppy. More material will go a long way in solving this problem.
• The material that IS there is poorly organized. But addition of material will help solve this problem, too.
• It lacks citations, and one of the few it has is defective.

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)

What does this mean?

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)

We finally have an answer for this. The separate village was called Cross Street. Nev1 (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What time is 'day-time'?

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)

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

Recent edits to the History section

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)

Geography

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)

External links section

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)

Lead image

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)

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)

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)

Where did we get upto with this? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A few niggles

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)

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)

"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?

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)

"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.

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)

"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.

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

"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?

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

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.

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)

What was the name of the first cinema?

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

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?

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

My observations

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)

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.

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)

Reads a lot better now, much nicer flow Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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?

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

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.

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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?

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)

Makes sense now, I thought it was just a typo when I read it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Transport - history section says canal opened in 1765, transport says 1766.

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)

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)

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)

Any thoughts on the above? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

Governance

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:

"In 1930, the urban districts of Ashton upon Mersey and Sale were merged into Sale UD."

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 see what you mean, something was bugging me about that sentence but I couldn't put my finger on what until you said that. It now reads:

"In 1930, the Ashton upon Mersey UD was merged into Sale UD." Nev1 (talk) 03:44, 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)

There's stuff that can be cannibalised from Municipal Borough of Sale. Nev1 (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Was just missing mentions of the Poor Law Union. Other than that, looks good. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for adding that. And good luck with Chadderton! Nev1 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

We nommed within 60 seconds of each other! Thanks! I'll help out with Sale wherever I can - got the FAC watchlisted. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Turnpike roads

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)

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)

I've added something to the article. Nev1 (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Origins of the name

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: Dodgson, J. McN. (1970), The place-names of Cheshire. Part two: The place-names of Bucklow Hundred and Northwich Hundred, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521079144

• 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 Dodgson, J. McN. (1970), The place-names of Cheshire. Part two: The place-names of Bucklow Hundred and Northwich Hundred, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521079144

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)

Bucklow (hundred)

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)

Copyediting

"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)

Bridgewater Canal

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)

I agree with you about moving the info on Cross Street, in fact I was just thinking about where it could go. I'll take a look at the sources for the canal right away. Nev1 (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Quoting directly from the Swain book (page 44): "In 1762 a third Act was passed to construct a further branch from Stretford, through Sale and Altrincham to Runcorn; although the section of canal through Sale was completed in 1765, work was held up at Norton so that the complete waterway did not come into operation until 1776." So you were pretty much correct and I've changed the article. I was going to leave in the bit about reaching to the mouth of the river, but I've removed it as I'm assuming you mean it wasn't for specifically transporting coal (or perhaps wasn't financed by the Duke)? I've also removed the completion date of the entire canal as it's not strictly necessary for this article, but if anyone feels it's worth mentioning please feel free to re-add it. Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The main Bridgewater Canal from Worsley to Manchester was indeed almost purely about getting coal from the Duke's mines into Manchester. As well as the underground levels he also had a few collieries dotted around Walkden and beyond (I grabbed this page a while ago). The later extensions would also carry coal but I'm of the understanding that the cargoes they carried were far more diverse; for instance, through the Trent and Mersey connection, salt was transported up the canal, across the Irwell, and up the Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal to Radcliffe and Little Lever. I think the later extensions were pretty much the Duke sticking two fingers up at everyone else, mostly the Mersey & Irwell Navigation. :)

You may want to consider including a word or three about the proposed extension from Sale Moor to Stockport - it was never to be built, it was probably a bit of politicking but there might be room for a sentence about it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It had crossed my mind that the extension might be worth mentioning (I think it was intended to go to Macclesfield as well), but after the article got criticised for having unnecessary detail in one of its FACs, I'm wary of adding more information. It is mentioned in the Bridgewater Canal article (where it certainly is relevant), so at least its not being lost altogether. Nev1 (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Mrs Worthington

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)

Railway electrification

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:

• 3 May 1903 Mersey Railway - throughout
• 22 March 1904 Lancashire and Yorkshire Rly - services from Liverpool;
• 29 March 1904 North Eastern Rly - North Tyneside;
• 1 July 1915 NER - Shildon-Newport
• 17 April 1916 L&YR - Manchester-Bury

--Redrose64 (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Midland Railway - Lancaster-Morecambe-Heysham, summer 1908 --Redrose64 (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm the Manchester to Bury line was electrified—however, from memory that line used a bespoke third rail system. I don't recall exactly what was unique about it, but perhaps the author of the quoted line meant that the Sale line was electrified using a similar system? I'll have to check exactly what was of interest about the M-B line. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Manchester-Altrincham route was 1500V DC overhead. The Manchester-Bury route was 1200V DC third-rail.

There were two peculiarities about the Bury route; (a) the pickup method - the collector shoe pressed against the side of the rail, not the top; and (b) the high voltage - third rail electrification was rarely above 750V [the SR lines west of Pirbright Junction were (and I believe still are) 850V]. See Marshall, John (1970). "Chapter Six — Electrification". The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway. Vol. Volume 2. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. pp. 169–178. ISBN 0 7153 4906 6. {{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.

The special thing about the Manchester-Altrincham route was that it was the first UK application of a 1500V DC overhead system for passenger trains. The NER Shildon route was also 1500V DC overhead, but only the freight trains were electrically hauled. But if the intended phrase is "followed in 1931 by ... the electrification at 1500V DC of the entire line, in one of the first such projects outside of South East England", then the last few words are superfluous, because there was no 1500V DC electrification in the South East until 1949 (Liverpool Street-Shenfield). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Have found a seventh early electrification outside the south-east: Bury-Holcombe Brook, 3500V DC overhead, 29 July 1913. This became 1200V DC overhead in 1917, and 1200V DC third-rail as per Manchester-Bury 29 March 1918. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The source does say one of the first, so not actually the first. While this isn't necessarily wrong, you're right that it could imply that it was grouped with the very earliest such projects outside the south east. As such I've removed the statement that it was one of the first, but I'd like to add some context to the electrification at some point. Nev1 (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Conservation area

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)

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)

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)

garthweb

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)

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)

Congratulations!

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)

Untitled

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)

Needs update

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)

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)

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)

FA sweeps

History stops in 1970, needs updating for 2021 census, some cn issues. (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Population

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)