Talk:Alderley Edge

Cheshire Low‑importance

	Cheshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assessment Report

Stub needs to be massively expanded.(See Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements for guidance.)
Photos need to be added.
Infobox needs to be added. (see Template:Infobox UK place/doc‎ for guidance.)
References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. (See WP:References, [[WP:V], and WP:CITE for guidance.)

DDStretch (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alderley Edge - History

• Does anyone agree that this section is incredibly rambling and needs tidying up?

The article as it stands confuses the geological feature of Alderley Edge with the village of Alderley Edge. According to National Trust sources the village was in fact called Chorley until comparatively recently. In 1842 the (new) railway station was called "Chorley for Alderley Edge", renamed in 1876 to just "Alderley Edge". This was to avoid confusion with Chorley in Lancashire. Thus the village was named after the geological feature, not vice versa.

== Think this has been covered - quote from page - The railway also gave Alderley Edge its current name. As the railway network expanded and travel became easier, the railway company did not want its station called Chorley any more because of the possible confusion with Chorley in Lancashire. So, in 1880 they renamed it Alderley Edge railway station against much opposition, taking the old name for the village and the name of the sandstone escarpment already known as The Edge.

Agreed that this is referenced quite far down in the article, but many sentences (for example, "The first written evidence of Alderley Edge") are ambiguous as to whether they refer to the village or the geological feature. I think it would be clearer if "Alderley Edge village" was consistently used for the former and "Alderley Edge" for the latter unless the context is self-explanatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin Cox (talk • contribs) 09:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, just thought you may have missed that point but otherwise what you say is fine. (sorry for not signing last time) Geotek (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alderley Edge - mines

References (selected) have been added for the article about the mines. Pictures have been added also. Let me know if more detail is required. Nigel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nigeldibben (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think we should try to make these references inline as far as is possible. Would this be possible for you to do, since you added most of them, and would know which places best to place them in the text? DDStretch (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ooops - sorry. Ignore that, you've done it! I've also added a notes section to avoid mixing up superscripted stuff (which is sometimes needed) with the author-date forms of referencing. DDStretch (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you think it is worth creating a new page for the Alderley Edge mines - they take up a large proportion of the Alderley Edge page. They can still be referred to, just more briefly under the landmarks section...

Population number updated

"Population 4808 not 4809 according to the improved reference now cited". Oops, has somebody died recently ??
Jotel 17:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It has come about because the two figures refer to slightly different things: one is for the civil parish, and one is for the ward, which is used to elect the district councillor. The two need not cover the same area. See Wards of the United Kingdom for an explanation. Looking at the 1:25000 OS Maps can also be illuminating, as they show many difefrent kinds of boundaries. DDStretch (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: if you look at the official government website for census figures, you can see the different shapes of Alderley Edge, meaning the ward, and Alderley Edge, meaning the civil parish. This gives the map of the civil parish (on right hand side of screen), and this gives the ward map. You can se they cover slightly different areas. DDStretch (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comprehensive explanation, and for treating my question seriously :-)
Jotel 06:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

Is it really necessary to give the same information twice: in the narrative and in the table?
--Jotel 21:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text was meant to be a more detailed version of the table, but if you don't think it works feel free to remove it. Nev1 13:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've since changed the demographics section, so that now it doesn't repeat the table as much. Nev1 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted :-) , with thanks. I'm sure it's better if the original editor, not a 'third-party' makes this type of changes.--Jotel 11:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing year

"The civil parish was enlarged on 30 September" in the section Boundary changes. What was the year? The Roman Candle (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alderley Edge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090517000027/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20080634_en_2#pt2-l1g3 to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20080634_en_2#pt2-l1g3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alderley Edge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester university produced a book on a dig they did here

https://manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9780719081989/

Height of the Edge

The article currently asserts a height of 215m (= c.705ft) but not being referenced, quite where that figure comes from, who knows? There is no contour exceeding the 190m (= c.623ft) contour on OS 25K mapping where the interval is 5m. A spot height of 637ft (= c.194m) appears on the last 1" OS mapping whilst one of 193.2m (= c.634ft)appears on more detailed OS digital mapping on a track at grid ref SJ 8604 7688. Anyone have any further insights? cheers Geopersona (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]