Talk:Sale, Greater Manchester

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Sale, Greater Manchester has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

Article edited to reflect that Sale is officially part of Greater Manchester I made an edit to say that joule went to Sale Boys Grammar School but this is impossible because Sale Boys was founded in the 1930s and Sale Grammar was founded in the 90s with the merger of the boys and girls grammar

Contents

[edit] Joule eduction

James Joule ... was educated at Sale Grammar School (Then Sale Boys Grammar School).

Really? Nothing that I have read elsewhere suggests this. Doed someone have a source? Cutler 08:17, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Water sports

I don't know who suggested that Sale "offers some of the finest aquatic sporting facilities in the North West", on the basis of Sale Leisure Centre and LA Fitness (!!), but that's just rubbish. Sale Leisure Centre is nothing to write home about (maybe I'm biased: there was a rampant cockroach infestation last time I was there), every town, village and hamlet has a swanky new gym these days, and before you mention the Water Park, two words: Lake District.

Now if they'd mentioned Dragons...

[edit] Democracy

Added list of 5 electoral wards within Sale.

[edit] Ceremonial and historic counties

Changed to Greater Manchester and Cheshire, respectively. Sale has never been in Lancashire to my knowledge.

Noticed that Lancashire was added in again today; could the contributor offer even one piece of evidence that Sale was part of Lancashire? This would be news to me, and to most residents I imagine! Aquilina 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I believe the River Mersey has always marked the boundary between Lancashire and Cheshire (Sale of course being south of the Mersey) and long before that, the boundary of the ancient kingdoms of Mercia and Northumbria. 11:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That fact is as I see it. The Mersey is the historic boundary between the Shires.

[edit] More edits

To the author (Squire4):

  • Sale is not in Manchester.
  • Sale is not and has never been in the county of Lancashire.
  • Unsure as to what 'in the city region of Manchester' means, Sale is certainly in the Greater Manchester conurbation, but is certainly not considered part of urban Manchester.
  • By 'historic county', it is meant Sale was once part of administrative Cheshire, but still remains in the physical county of Cheshire and has a strong identity with Cheshire.
  • The majority of addresses in Sale use 'Cheshire', not 'Lancashire'. Personally, the use of 'Lancashire' in a Sale address is completely wrong and unheard of.

'Note that the LGA 1972 did not do anything to the historic Counties of Britain. It only abolished the administrative counties and county boroughs. The Government was (and still is) happy to confirm that the Counties themselves were unaffected...'

"The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of ... local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change." Source:(DoE Statement, 1st April 1974), http://www.abcounties.co.uk/newgaz/cen.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.173.56 (talk • contribs)

09:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC) But what is trying to be defended here. Sale is in essence a Manchester dormitory and is not a place miles away from Manchester centre! Its no different in the M'cr context than say Droylsden/Eccles/Prestwich etc.,get real!!! Nway,Sale has a strong identity with Manchester AND YOU KNOW THAT.Utterrubbish.Writing Cheshire on the address fools nobody, its a 'ST PETERS SQUARE TRAM USERS' way of trying to put daylight between him/herself and a fellow commuter who alights @ Stretford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squire4 (talk • contribs)

All what was being said was that Sale was and has never been in Manchester or Lancashire. Manchester is a clearly defined place with clearly defined borders and calling Sale a Manchester town is frankly wrong. You've just proved your ignorance further, as both Eccles and Prestwich are in Salford, not Manchester and Droylsden being in Tameside. This is an Encyclopedia, it is supposed to consist of facts, not popular misunderstandings. Also, do not edit people's messages, it is extremely rude, instead reply to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christrafford (talk • contribs)

SALE This township or civil parish was in Cheshire. It was in Ashton upon Mersey ecclesiastical parish and in Bucklow poor law Union (which' was called Altrincham Union until 1895). In 1867 Sale Local Board of Health was established for the area of the township. In 1894 the area of the Board became an Urban District. In 1908 a very small part of it was added to Ashton upon Mersey Urban District in widening a road for tramways. In 1930 Ashton upon Mersey Urban District was added to it. In 1935 Sale Urban District became a Municipal Borough. In 1936 a very small part of Timperley civil parish was added to the Borough. In 1974 it became part of Trafford Metropolitan Borough.

Therefore, Sale is not 'in' Manchester, however, it is, since the re-shuffle of local government in 1974, 'in' the administrative county of Greater Manchester, 'in' the Historic County of Cheshire. 80.192.242.187 11:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC) JemmyH.

First things first: please sign your posts by writing ~~~~ at the end before you save. This is so that all comments are stamped with your username and time so that people coming later can follow the discussion.
By all means, the proximity of Sale to Manchester can and should be mentioned, and it's status as a commuter town and part of Greater Manchester noted. However, this does not rewrite the previous 500 years history in which the town has been part of Cheshire. Just because enough people drive to work up the the A56 does not magically move the Lancashire border ten miles south of the River Mersey. Sale has about as much to do with Lancashire as Halifax does.
Secondly Sale has a town hall. It has a town centre. It has had it's own council since 1894, and has never been administered from Manchester directly. It's even outside the M60. It waddles like a town, it quacks like a town, therefore it is a town - as much as Rochdale, Stockport and Hyde are.
When it comes down to it, this is an encyclopaedia. There is no great conspiracy to keep Sale house prices up on Wikipedia! All the documentary evidence and history points to this. Even saying "but people say it's part of Manchester" is not enough here. If you can find reliable, verifiable sources that Sale is either a de facto or even de jure part of the city of Manchester, then the article will have to be changed. Until then, it stands correct, and it might be worth reading the articles at History of Cheshire, List of post towns in the United Kingdom, Administrative counties of England and Subdivisions of the United Kingdom to get more understanding of the background. But most of all, have a look at WP:CITE. Aquilina 17:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I've added a couple of references for population and etymology. If any one cares to go through the Trafford site at http://www.trafford.gov.uk/cme/live/cme3171.htm they could probably extract ward stats, but I couldn't find where the figures on here were taken from. Also, if anyone feels like writing up the early history, there is some good info here http://www.luso.u-net.com/sale1.htm - SWAHILLI --62.3.249.70 00:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Paul's Sale website

Please could you add a link on your Sale, Greater Manchester page to the St Paul's Church website It is :

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rodney.hadwen/stpauls/

Thank you Stpaulsale 10:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Added to the links section.

Bobfos 11:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

The article is well on its way to Good Article status, but needs a few fixes and expansion in some sections.

The lead section needs expanding and should adequately summarize the content of the article; see WP:LEAD for guidelines here.

I have rearranged the sections. The new 'geography and climate' section needs expanding and a 'demographics' sections should be added to the article, including 2001 census information. An economy section needs to also be added giving info on local industries.

A table showing the average rainfall and temperature could be added to the geography & climate section. A template for this table can be found at Herne Bay, Kent#Geography and climate. You can find data for Sale's nearest weather station here.

The politics section could be expanded. For example, which party controls Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council.

A 'cultural venues' subsection could be added to the culture section giving info on local theatres, :museums, cinemas etc. A 'local media' subsection could also be added giving info on local papers and radio stations.

Each 'fair use' image needs a fair use rationale.

'Trivia' sections are generally discouraged in articles. Try to incorporate the info elsewhere in the article.

The prose in the education section needs expanding. Include some more info on individual schools.

The external links section is slightly too long. Remove links to Sale Rugby Club for example which aleady has a link to its own wikipedia article. It might help to review WP:EL.

More citations are needed in the article. Ideally, every paragraph should have at least one citation. Each notable resident needs a citation.

Hope these suggestions help improve the article. It might also help to review the good article criteria. Feel free to renominate once these have been fixed. Epbr123 10:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


"A table showing the average rainfall and temperature could be added to the geography & climate section."
I find that suggestion astonishing. Sale is with a short walk of Altrincham, Stretford ... and a great many other areas within Trafford. What is the point of each of those articles repeating the same local climate data? ---- Eric 03:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It's better than none those articles including local climate data. Epbr123 15:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Similarly this comment; "The politics section could be expanded. For example, which party controls Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council."
That information ought to be available by following the internal link to Trafford Council, not repeated in every article about an area within Trafford.
---- Eric 03:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
People shouldn't have to search through other articles to find info relevant to Sale. Epbr123 15:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. But that isn't information about Sale. It's information about the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford. ---- Eric 20:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Should the names of the MPs be removed because the info is not about Sale, it is about the constituencies of Altrincham & Sale West and Wythenshawe and Sale East? Epbr123 20:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The names of the MPs occurs in only a couple of articles. The politics of Trafford Metropolitan Bourough Council, just like the climeate of Sale, would be repeated in a great many articles, not just one or two. Big difference. ---- Eric 21:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, to answer your question, yes, I would remove the names of the MPs. Repeating the same information in many articles inevitable leads to inconsistencies in that information. There are hyperlinks to the constituencies, they should be used, not information copied from them. ---- Eric 21:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Most city Featured Articles include the names of MPs and who runs the Council. The WikiProject Cities guidelines states that info on climate should be included. However, I think you are right. But there needs to be an article on the climate of Greater Manchester which can be linked to. Epbr123 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Sale isn't a City, it's a small town in the southern part of a city.
Your suggestion about an article on the climate of Greater Manchester is a good one. ---- Eric 22:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But Sale is a pretty small area within Greater Manchester, it doesn';t

WikiProject Cities includes towns & villages. Epbr123 22:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It may well do, but that's not the point. Towns in Manchester, like Sale, have the same climate as every other town in Manchester. What on earth would be the point in repeating the same Greater Manchester climate data in every article about a town/village/area in Greater Manchester? ---- Eric 22:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The article has to mention the climate. If there isn't an article on the climate of Greater Manchester, the Greater Manchester climate data will have to be included in this article. Epbr123 01:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If the climate of Greater Manchester isn't already covered in the Greater Manchester article then it should be added to the Greater Manchester article, not the Sale article. ---- Eric 22:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Its this article thats trying to be GA, not Greater Manchester. Epbr123 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
In fact both have aspirations to be GA (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester), but that's not the point. Information ought to be in the right place, not placed just so that one article can get GA status. Surely the integrity of the encyclopedia is more important than whether or not one article gets GA status?
Taking your argument to its logical conclusion we only need one article about Greater Manchester, this Sale article. ---- Eric 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who is able to add climate data to this article is equally able to add it to the place where it ought to be, the Greater Manchester article, and able to reference it from here. The alternative is that we start seeing the identical climate data in articles about Dunham Massey, Bowdon, Timperley, Partington, Old Trafford ... ---- Eric 19:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you add the climate data to the Greater Manchester article? Epbr123 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Why didn't the person who initially added it to this article not add it to the Greater Manchester article? Why does anyone now arguing for that data to be added to this article not instead add it to the Greater Manchester article? I am not a meterologist and I'm certain there must be many others better qualified to write something about the climate of Greater Manchester than I am. But if nobody else is prepared to step up to the plate then I will, rather than see what I think is the farce of identical climate data being repeated in every article about an area in Greater Manchester. ---- Eric 22:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable residents section

I was unable to find references for the following people in the notables residents section:

If anyone can find sources for these people, feel free to add them back to the article complete with citation. Nev1 16:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd GA Review

Pass! A great improvement.

Here are some further suggestions for improvement:

  • I don't think each of the landmarks and attractions should have there own subheading. The Waterside Arts Centre paragraph is too short to be a section of its own.
  • The redlinks in the school and church tables should be removed. Very few primary schools and churches are notable enough to have their own articles.
  • The etymology section should be combined with early history.

Epbr123 20:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


I can only think that you must have been looking at a different article from the one that I was looking at earlier this evening :-)
---- Eric 03:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The only problem with the article is the layout, which I have asked thm to fix. Epbr123 15:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent history

So far as I can see this section contains hardly any recent history at all, the most recent event being repairs to the town hall in 1952. ---- Eric 03:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted GA

The article no longer fulfills the good article criteria. The lead and geography section needs expanding. Epbr123 15:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watling Street

The A56 was a Roman road called Watling Street but it wasn't the same as the more famous Watling Street.Epbr123 18:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no Roman Road called Watling Street; Watling Street is an Anglo Saxon name. Who has ever (correctly) called the A56 Watling Street? ---- Eric 19:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Its Anglo Saxon name was Wæcelinga Stræt. Watling Street is what the road is called now. See here. Epbr123 19:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I quite agree that map shows the location of what the Anglo Saxons called Watlington Street. But it goes nowhere near Sale. The A56 follows the route of a Roman road that connected Chester and Manchester, nothing to do with Watling Street. ---- Eric 20:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The Roman road that connected Chester and Manchester is called Watling Street. See here pg 32. Epbr123 20:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
That article simply demonstates the unreliability of mediaeval writers. I doubt that there would be anyone today who does not believe that the course of Watling Street runs from Dover to Wroxeter, many miles from Sale. [1]. If someone wants to say that the A56 has been locally known as Watling Street that's one thing. But it ought not to be internally linked to the currently accepted route of Watling Street in that case, and it ought to be clearly disambiguated from it. ---- Eric 21:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree it should be disambiguated but I'm just pointing out that more than one Roman road was officially called Watling Street. Epbr123 21:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd dispute your use of the word "officially", but I wouldn't fight you over it :-). I just don't see any point in making a potentially misleading connection between the A56 and and what most everybody would think of as Watling Street myself. There's no doubt that the A56 through Sale pretty much follows the route of a Roman road linking Chester and Manchester, which is the important thing to say. But there's also no doubt the the Romans didn't call the A56 Watling Street, and nor I think would many others today. ---- Eric 21:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is it so hard to get even the basic facts right?

How many wards are there in Sale exactly? The nine that the article claims, or the five that Trafford thinks that there are? [2] ---- Eric 23:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As a supplementary question, how can an article get WP:GA status when it contains so many errors? Is that just a quick check on the English and a count of the references, but not actually checking any of them? ---- Eric 00:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
What errors are there? Epbr123 00:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Many have now been corrected. But most recently the discrepancy in the number of wards within Sale. Was it nine or was it five? The text said one thing but the reference given said something else. ---- Eric 00:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It depends how the Sale boundary is defined. The article stated that four of the wards contained areas outside of Sale. Epbr123 00:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sale is an area within the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford. There's no negotiation about where Sale's boundaries might be. ---- Eric 00:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Electoral boundaries don't always match traditional boundaries. Epbr123 00:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing electoral boundaries with historical boundaries, just like the article did until it was corrected. Wards are not historical/traditional boundaries.

The fact remains though that the wards within Sale are well defined, and there are five, not nine.

Neither the article or myself confused electoral boundaries with historical boundaries. The article merely stated that some of the historical areas of Sale were outside of Sale's five electoral wards. Epbr123 01:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but it certainly isn't mine. ---- Eric 01:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The article tried to give an estimate of the poplation of the traditional area of Sale, stating "Totals for Broadheath, Bucklow St Martin's, Timperley, and Village are estimates as these electoral wards only contain part of the Sale population." Epbr123 01:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no "traditonal area of Sale". Or if there was, then let's see the evidence for it in the article. ---- Eric 01:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Where's the evidence that Sale's boundaries are defined by electoral wards? Epbr123 08:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Nobody has suggested that Sale's boundaries are defined by electoral wards. Sale's boundaries are defined by the Local Government Act 1972. ---- Eric 01:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Whilst some superfluous – and repeated – information has been removed from the article some relevant information has been lost, the swathe of perfunctory edits to the article has not benefited it.

For instance, the Harrying of the North was an important event in the history of the North of England, explaining Sale’s stunted growth after the Norman conquest of Britain. This surely warrants its inclusion in the early history section? Also, in the transport section, the material about the Bridgewater Canal was removed. I would like to know the justification behind this as the canal cannot easily be dismissed from Sale. Not to mention the sports section and the Sale Sharks information. The point of the article on Sale is to bring together all relevant information on the town, the events within it and the people. Whilst the prose on Sale Sharks may have been slightly excessive it was relevant.

Constructive criticism is always welcome, but I believe that some of the removed material should be reinstated, however I can assure you that I will not do this unless others agree. Nev1 16:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The "harrying of the north" did not affect Sale, as Sale is south of the River Mersey. If anyone has any evidence that the "harrying of the north" did affect Sale, then of course that information ought to be included in the article.
So far as Sale Sharks is concerned, its only connection with Sale is that it is an offshoot of Sale rugby club, which is mentioned in tbe article and a link provided.
The Bridgewater Canal information was removed because it can hardly be called an important transport route through 21st century Sale. Fine to include some local information relevant to its historical importance to Sale.
Obviously I agree with your general point that an article about Sale ought to bring together information about Sale. Perhaps where we disagree is that I don't think that means that everything about, let's say Trafford Council, has to be repeated in the Sale article and every other article about an area within Trafford. For instance, including climate data for Sale was surely absurd wasn't it? ---- Eric 00:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, apart from that now rather strange looking "Notable residents" section, I think the article looks pretty good. Is that prose based style for notable residents some new standard/guideline? ---- Eric 00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
My point is that Cheshire was effected by the Harrying of the North, and by association so was Sale. There is no explicit documentation of Sale's involvement because records were sparodic at best and probably lost if there were any to begin with. Admittedly, the only evidence comes from the lack of growth of Sale after the Norman Conquest.
I've added the logo of Sale FC, though the logo of Sale Sharks would be preferable.
Also, I've reinstated some of the stuff from the transport section and moved it to the recent history section as it seemed more appropriate. Any more ideas how the article could be improved? Nev1 16:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
My point is that if Cheshire was affected by the harrying of the north then that information ought to be in tbe Cheshire article, not the Sale article. Sale didn't even exist, or at least there's no evidence that it did exist, at the time of the harrying of the north in 1069.
I really do think that our only point of disagreement is about the scope of the information in this article. I do generally think that it's a good article, and I'd like to see it become a model for other articles about other areas in Trafford when it gets its WP:GA status back again. And some important points have come out of the discussion, like providing a link to climate data for Greater Manchester. ---- Eric 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for improvement

  • The lead should mention the population figure and any characteristics commonly associated with Sale.
  • The number of subsections should be minimised. The Landmarks and attractions sections does not need to be subdivided.
  • The History section does not need to be subdivided in early and recent history as the sections are relatively short. 'Recent' is also a subjective term.
  • The History section should be moved above the Geography and administration section to be consistent with other city articles.
  • The Geography and administration section should mention the geography. Ideally, geography and administration should be separate sections.
  • Info should be included on the town's industries, museums, galleries, theatres, cinemas, parks and festivals.
  • Lists are discouraged in city articles. The school & church lists would be better in separate articles.
  • Census data on the religious makeup of the town would be useful in the Religion section.
  • Census data on the age distribution would be useful in the Demographics section.
  • Census data on the industry of employment of residents would be useful in the Economy section.

Epbr123 16:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in altering the layout as it's consistent with other articles within the Greater Manchester Wikiproject. Nev1 18:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That's fine then. Its not too important. Epbr123 18:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
"The lead should mention the population figure". Population information is already in the infobox. Ought it really to be repeated in the lead? ---- Eric 22:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The lead is meant to summarize the article. It doesn't matter if its info is also stated elsewhere. Epbr123 22:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Even when that same information is stated about 2 inches to the right of the lead, in a standard place where people might be expected to look for it? Summarising isn't synonymous with repeating. ---- Eric 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The info box also shows that Sale is within the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford, in Greater Manchester, England. Should that be removed from the lead? Epbr123 23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion yes, or remove it from the infobox. Why keep repeating the same information? The infobox is already a summary of Sale, the lead ought to expand on that, not simply duplicate it. ---- Eric 23:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You really hate repetition, don't you? When a reader just wants some basic info about an article, it is expected that they will read the lead, rather than the info box. Epbr123 23:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Who expects that? Why have infoboxes if they're going to be ignored? I simply think that the lead ought to summarise the article, not repeat some arbitrary details some may think are important, details already given in the infobox.
It's not I hate repetition, it's just that I've never seen the point of it. It leads to inconsistency. ---- Eric 23:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Population is more than an arbitrary detail. The size of a town is one of its most defining characteristics. Epbr123 00:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
And that's why the population is quite correctly in the infobox. It's the repetition of that information in the lead that's arbitrary. ---- Eric 00:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The lead takes precedent over the info box. It should be removed from the info box if anything, although it serves a useful purpose in both places. Epbr123 00:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We'll probably have to agree to disagree. ---- Eric 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As a guideline for much of the article, I refered to the structure of the Shaw and Crompton article, a fine example of a GA article. Even articles such as that one kept some lists as the town isn't really big enough to warrant another article for the lists alone, and I believe that this applies to Sale. Nev1 15:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The lists in the Shaw and Crompton article may be a problem if it goes for FA status. Also, a list of schools and churches may have been more acceptable in that article as the lists were shorter than in the Sale article. Although, its probably worth leaving the lists in until a GA or FA reviewer asks for their removal. Also note that the Shaw and Crompton article had no one-sentence subsections. The short subsections in the Sale article will either need to be expanded or removed. Epbr123 16:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
More info about the history of Sale can be found here. Epbr123 17:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This issue with lists is puzzling me, and if anyone can provide one I'd appreciate an explanation. Is it being suggested that there ought to be a separate article on, for instance, Sale's Schools and another on Sale's churches?
What's the corresponding recommendation for the Notable residents section, which looks like a dog's dinner at present having being "delisted"? ---- Eric 20:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The schools should actually go into List of schools in the North West of England. What don't you like about the current Notable residents section? Epbr123 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Notable residents section looks like a number of unrelated sentences composed into a few arbitrary paragraphs. But if you think it looks OK, then perhaps it's just me.

I have to say though that I do agree with getting these lists of schools/churches out of individual articles and somewhere central. I haven't checked, but I'd bet that several of the schools listed in this article aren't actually in Sale at all. ---- Eric 20:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look closer, you'll notice that the Notable residents paragraphs aren't arranged arbitrarily. I think people need to start concentrating on what should be added to the article, rather than taken out. Epbr123 10:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the website Epbr123 suggested, it uses the Hainsworth and Swain books as sources which are also cited in the wikipedia article, so it should be reliable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nev1 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I've had a stab a rewriting the notable residents section, it's not perfect but I think it's better and certainly seems slightly less non-sequitor. Nev1 16:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"The schools should actually go into List of schools in the North West of England. What don't you like about the current Notable residents section? Epbr123 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)"
OK, all of Trafford's schools, including Sale's, are now in the List of schools in the North West of England. How do you recommend sensibly linking to that list so as to be able to remove the current list of schools from this article? An example would be good.
Nev1 has already very ably addressed what I didn't like about the Notable residents section. ---- Eric 22:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this Herne Bay, Kent article that you apparently gave GA status to, to be taken as a template for how to avoid lists of schools in your opinion? Difficult to do that kind of thing with a large LEA with 30 or more primary schools. ---- Eric 00:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Add
See also: List of schools in the North West of England#Trafford to the education section. The schools should be talked about in general and only the most notable ones mentioned. I wrote Herne Bay, Kent and it is soon to be a Featured Article. Epbr123 00:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That didn't really answer my question. ---- Eric 01:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Shall I write it for you? Epbr123 01:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you've completely missed the point. ---- Eric 01:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It seems I have. Epbr123 01:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an easy question. All the schools in the north west are now in the List of schools in the North West of England, as you asked for. Now what? ---- Eric 01:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I've told you! Epbr123 01:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. No answer once again. ---- Eric 03:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

    • This must be a wind-up. Epbr123 11:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeating information

I think the current Sale Water Park subsection is a good example of where summarising (repeating) information is done well. The facts summarised aren't dynamic and give enough information to allow a reader to decide whether the link might be an interesting one to follow or not. ---- Eric 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is good. I hope the same can be done with the lead soon. Epbr123 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

What is Sale? It's an area within Trafford isn't it? Is it still a town? How are towns defined within conurbations like Greater Manchester? ---- Eric 05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge it's a town. Why do you ask? Nev1 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I ask because it seems to me that there's an inherent inconsistency between Sale as a town and Sale as a ward within Trafford, in the population data for instance. Is that the population of the town of Sale or the ward of Sale? Sale was a town, as was neighbouring Stretford. But are they still towns in 2007? Doesn't "town" imply some kind of local autonomy? ---- Eric 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I would say it's still a town. A lot of places in Greater London are still called towns. There isn't actually an official definition of a town; I think it depends on what the locals call it. All towns are also electoral wards within a district. Epbr123 22:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Towns surely had some form of autonomous government that places like Sale don't have today. If it only depended on what the locals called it then Yorkshire would be a republic :). ---- Eric 22:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not many towns have there own form of government. No towns near me do. Epbr123 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Quite. So perhaps they were towns but are no longer towns. ---- Eric 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What should they be called then? Epbr123 22:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

They should be called what they are. Hence my question. ---- Eric 22:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • So all towns and villages in Britain should be renamed areas? Epbr123 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I was asking a question. Is that your answer to my question? Villages often have parish councils and towns have town councils. Sale has had neither for some time so far as I'm aware. ---- Eric 22:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Not all non-conurbation towns and villages have councils. Epbr123 22:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that they all did. My question was specifically about Sale. ---- Eric 23:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Why do you think Sale isn't a town? Epbr123 23:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that I didn't think Sale was a town. My question was about the definition of a town, particularly in conurbations like Manchester. ---- Eric 23:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I answered that question in my first comment, but you didn't seem happy with the answer. Epbr123 23:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the ambiguity. For instance, is the population given for Sale the town's population or the ward's population? ---- Eric 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be the wards' population. There shouldn't be any difference between the two as the ward boundaries would be set around the town. Epbr123 00:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
For instance, wouldn't it be more correct to say something like Sale was formerly a town and is now a ward within Trafford? I'm just asking the question because what's currently being said doesn't seem consistent to me. ---- Eric 23:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Sale is actually about six wards, not one. Epbr123 00:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
[3] Epbr123 01:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, the Sale area has a number of wards, none of them called Sale. What's your point? ---- Eric 01:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You're the one who keeps going on about Sale being a ward! Epbr123 01:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you try reading what has been said, not what you think has been said. I'm rather disappointed that someone who has the apparent ability to grant WP:GA status has acted so aggressively in the face of perfectly reasonable criticisms and questions.

I'm afraid that it makes me doubt whether there's any point in continuing to contribute in the face of such intransigence. ---- Eric 01:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm getting confused. You said, "wouldn't it be more correct to say something like Sale was formerly a town and is now a ward within Trafford?". When have I been aggressive? Why would I ,mind you criticising? I didn't write the article. Epbr123 01:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write the article either, but that's not the point. You have quite quite correctly quoted a question that I asked, one that has has been studiously avoided.

  • Here's the answer again: no. Epbr123 02:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your answer may be same but the question doesn't go away. As I said, I'm rather disappointed that someone with the the apparent ability to grant GA status to articles doesn't also also have the ability to recognise when he or she is wrong.

I'll take no further part in this Sale article. ---- Eric 02:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre! Epbr123 02:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Bizarre from your pov perhaps, but not mine. You have demonstrated yourself to be unable to answer even the simplest of questions — just look at the unanswered questions in this topic — so I have lost interest in responding to your offerings. ---- Eric 02:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This is weird. Which questions haven't I answered? Epbr123 11:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as you aren't leaving after all, could you please clearly and POLITELY ask me the question you think I keep avoiding? Epbr123 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia article on towns a town can refer to either a settlement which has traditionally been called a town or to one which has its own town council. One of the constituent parts of a town council is a Mayor which Sale has, but I'll have to do some more research one the subject. I think this would slot well into the geography and administration section. The discrepencies in Sale's population according to the 2001 census and the current ward data results from Traffords rearrangement of ward boundaries in 2003. Nev1 10:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Turns out I was wrong about Sale having a mayor or council, Sale is run by Trafford council as part of a unitary authority. I think though that Sale still counts as a town as it has been historically a town. Also if what were previously towns lost their status when they became part of Trafford council places such as Altrincham, Stretford and Urmston would no longer be towns. Nev1 12:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics section

This section seems to be cited from the Queenborough and Halfway ward. In Kent. Whilst this section does require expansion, it would help to do it with the correct information. The wards in Sale are Ashton upon Mersey, Brooklands, Priory, Sale Moor and St. Mary's. However, there is some difficulty in bringing the figures from these wards together to form a coherent section. Did I mention Sale is not in Kent? Nev1 13:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have confused Sale, Greater Manchester for Swale, Kent. Nev1 13:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I was using the Queenborough and Halfway ward as a template and forgot to change the reference.

Where did the past population figures come from? Epbr123 14:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I can't remember, but I did a quick tally of the numbers from the ward profiles and they match your numbers. As such I think that they should be cited as the sources rather than 'neighbourhood statistics' which only leads to the search page. Nev1 14:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've provided links to each ward's data as you suggested. I have removed the past population figures as they are unsourced and appear to be false. Epbr123 14:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am curious as to why the percentages of the different kinds of households do not add up to 100%.--Scrawlspacer 07:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy

"Sale has a much higher percentage of adults with a diploma or degree compared to Greater Manchester as a whole. 27% of Sale residents aged 16-74 had a Bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 20% nationwide."

Is that really true? The census counts level 4/5 qualifications, defined as First Degree, Higher Degree, NVQ levels 4 and 5; HNC; HND; Qualified Teacher Status; Qualified Medical Doctor; Qualified Dentist; Qualified Nurse; Midwife; or Health Visitor. It doesn't count bachelor's degree or higher. ---- Eric 04:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • First Degrees are Bachelor's degrees. Those other qualifications rank level or higher than a Bachelor's degree. Epbr123 09:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I know what a bachelor's degree is, and I also know what an HNC is. It most certainly does not rank level or higher than a first degree. Neither do NVQs, at whatever level. ---- Eric 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

    • That just displays your total ignorance. I don't wish to converse with you again. Epbr123 18:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever. Epbr123 15:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


The statement I quoted at the top of this section is wrong. It is not true that 27% of Sale residents have a Bachelor's degree or higher. Is "whatever" an appropriate way to address that? Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia article? ---- Eric 16:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The figure quoted comes from the neighbourhood statistics site, although it is the result of 5 wards worth of data. As correctly stated earlier "The census counts level 4/5 qualifications, defined as First Degree, Higher Degree, NVQ levels 4 and 5; HNC; HND; Qualified Teacher Status; Qualified Medical Doctor; Qualified Dentist; Qualified Nurse; Midwife; or Health Visitor" not bachelor's degrees. The figures are correct, but the text explaining them is incorrect and as such will be changed. Nev1 17:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Those qualifications do rank level or higher than a Bachelor's degree. Epbr123 18:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
All the same, let's try to be clear on the point. Nev1 18:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

*Those qualifications do rank level or higher than a Bachelor's degree. Epbr123 18:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

HNCs, for instance, most certainly do not rank level or higher than a first degree. You might have a case arguing that an HND does, but not an HNC. But as Nev1 suggested, let's try to keep to the point. Which is to get this article back up to GA status. Dubious statements like "27% of residents have a Bachelor's degree or higher" really aren't helpful. ---- Eric 23:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I am actually aware of how to get articles to GA status. You're very lucky that I've taken an interest in this article. Epbr123 00:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


**That just displays your total ignorance. I don't wish to converse with you again. Epbr123 18:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If I'm ignorant, then surely I ought to be taught? If I'm right, then surely I ought not to be abused? I fail to see where "lucky" comes into it. ---- Eric 00:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Can you please concentrate on improving articles rather than starting disruptive squabbles? Epbr123 00:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


I am merely trying to correct your "facts". ---- Eric 00:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • For someone who totally disrespects my work, you do seem to copy it quite alot. Epbr123 00:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


I am interested in two things. Getting the facts right and establishing some kind of standard for articles in the Trafford area. I'm not interested in you at all. So why not take your own advice?

Can you please concentrate on improving articles rather than starting disruptive squabbles? Epbr123 00:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC) ---- Eric 00:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • When have I ever started an argument with you?? I have made 13 edits to articles within the past hour, whereas all you've done is argue. Epbr123 01:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Many residents commute to work outside the town, mainly to Manchester city centre. As at the 2001 UK census, 25,503 of Sale's residents were in employment, whereas only 18,496 people in total had their place of work within the town.

If that can't be summarised by saying that 27% of Sale's residents work outside of the town then it is a non sequitor. ---- Eric 02:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I merely corrected your "facts". It means that at least 27% of Sale's residents work outside of the town. Remember that some people may commute into Sale. Feel free to copy this sentence onto the Stretford article. Epbr123 02:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You're going to have to run that one by me again. I said "27% of Sale's residents work outside of the town" You said at least 27% of Sale's residents work outside of the town.

In any event I have no intention of copying your statistical misunderstandings anywhere. ---- Eric 01:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I have a degree in statistics, so I'm quite capable of understanding them. If 18,496 of 25,503 Sale residents work within Sale, then 27% of Sale's residents work outside of the town. However, the statement does not say that 18,496 Sale residents work within Sale. It says that 18,496 in total (including people living outside Sale) work within Sale. It is therefore factually incorrect to say that 27% of Sale's residents work outside of the town. Understand? Epbr123 02:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use rationales

Please provide Fair Use rationales for the recently added images. Epbr123 13:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Which ones require a fair use rationale? Nev1 15:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The Sale FC logo and the Council Arms. Epbr123 15:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought logos didn't need one. I'll get on it anyway. Nev1 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geography and administration

Why are geography and administration grouped together? Epbr123 13:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why has it taken you so long to ask that question? Is there some secret format for areas within Trafford that only the initiated are allowed access to?
If there is a standard format then let's see it. No more fannying about, just let's see it. ---- Eric 01:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The standard layout comes from the Greater Manchester wikiproject. The format was rolled out to virtually every page on a town or villae encompassed by the project a few months ago. I couldn't find anything that explicitly said this is what to do but it seems to have been accepted as the norm. Why geography and administration are grouped together though escapes me. Nev1 15:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyediting

We should try to focus more on adding information rather than copyediting. It will be given a proper copyedit soon by the League of Copyeditors. Epbr123 13:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have put the article on hold until the following issues are addressed.

  1. The lead should be expanded to better summarize the article. The length should probably be three or four paragraphs and provide an overview of all or most of the sections.
  2. "It is just north of the town of Altrincham and around 1 mile to the south of the town of Stretford." Instead of using "around", change to "approximately" or "about". Y Done
  3. "The local geology consists of sand and gravel deposited during the last ice age." When was the last ice age? Specify.Y Done
  4. "These wards have fifteen of the sixty three seats on Trafford Council." Add hyphen between sixty three.Y Done
  5. "That Sale was a township suggests pre-Norman habitation by the Saxons as townships were a Saxon development." Reword the beginning of the sentence, "that" isn't a very good start.Y Done
  6. "Sale Old Hall, the place of administration for the town, dates back to at least 1577, but possibly since the thirteenth century in the form of another building with the same name." This sentence isn't very clear and could use a better rewrite.Y Done
  7. "In 1804, 3000 volunteers from northwest England, raised by Sir John Moore to defend against invasion by Napoleon, were inspected on Sale Moor by Prince William of Gloucester." Either expand on this sentence or incorporate it into another paragraph. Single sentences shouldn't stand alone. The same also goes for two paragraphs later ("During the Second World War...").Y Done
  8. "Some of Sale's largest employers are supermarkets such as Tesco — currently undergoing a £2 million refurbishment — and Sainsbury’s, both of which have outlets in the town centre." Add an inline citation about the 2 million figure.
    • Statement removed until we can find the source. Epbr123 22:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. "For a long time, Sale’s businesses played second fiddle to their more prosperous counterparts in Altrincham" Reword "second fiddle", to something more encylopedic.Y Done
  10. "As at March 2005, there were 1,515 business premises in Sale." If possible, see if this has been updated.
    • No update found. Epbr123 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. In the "Economy" section, the last two paragraphs begin with the same thing; change one of them to add some more variety.Y Done
  12. "It is a memorial to the 400 men from Sale who died in the First World War and the almost 300 men who died in the Second World War" Add wikilinks for both of the wars.Y Done
  13. "‘Eyebrow Cottage’" Why does this have '' around it? None of the other landmarks do.Y Done
  14. "In 2004, the centre received the prestigious British Urban Regeneration Association Award for its innovative and creative use of available space, and for reinvigorating Sale town centre." I think you can remove the comma after space.Y Done
  15. "The club has produced some outstanding athletes" I think that this should be reworded to remove outstanding as some may see this as POV.Y Done
  16. Rename "Sport" to "Sports".
    • I think 'sports' may be an American term. Epbr123 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You could be right. If the "Religion" section isn't called "Religions", why should the "Sport" section be called "Sports"? --- Eric 23:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. "Sale has four secondary schools and several primary schools – some religious – and according to individual OFSTED reports, most achieve above the national average results in tests." Add inline citation for the last half of the sentence.
    • Statement removed — difficult to cite without providing links to every schools' report. Epbr123 23:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. In the "Religion" section, combine some of the sentences into the same paragraph or expand on them. Also, the first paragraph currently could use a better rewrite.Y Done
  19. "Perhaps the most important politician to come from Sale was Baron Orme[45]." Remove "most important" and use something else. Also the inline citation goes directly after the period. In the next sentence add a hyphen in between left wing.Y Done
  20. If possible see if there are any more categories that could be added related to the town.
    • I don't think there is. Epbr123 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Altogether, the article is well-written with many inline citations. It is also very broad in coverage which is good to see. I will leave the article on hold for seven days and will pass it if the above issues are addressed. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page. When you are done fixing the above suggestions, also let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Nehrams2020 to re-review the article. Epbr123 00:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have passed the article. Good job on addressing the above issues so quickly. Concerning the "Sport/Sports" issue, I just thought since several sports were being discussed that it would sound a little better to make it plural. If you think that it's fine as is, go ahead and leave it. I wanted to point it out just in case you overlooked it. Continue to improve the article, making sure that all new information is properly sourced. If you have the time, please consider reviewing an article or two at GAC to help with the backlog. Keep up the good work, and I hope you continue to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia! --Nehrams2020 01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. [4] ---- 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)

[edit] 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 [5]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in July 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sale Cenotaph1.jpg

Image:Sale Cenotaph1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sale Borough Council arms.jpg

Image:Sale Borough Council arms.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)