Talk:Southport
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] Politics
[edit] Merge
There was previoiusly a note to merge the Politics section with Southport (UK Parliament constituency). I removed this in light of recent plans to rename/redefine Southport's constituency to allow time to see what actually happens. --me_and 14:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] History of Southport in Merseyside
I've copied this over from User_talk:IanDavies, as it's relevant to the article:
I know that Southport is now part of the (administrative) county of Merseyside(!), but think it's important to also mention that it was part of the (administrative) county of Lancashire before that, which is what I put. (It is still part of the traditional county of Lancashire however - the borders for that have never changed).
I just tried to give a bit more detailed idea of the history behind the decision, which I think is important to include as it was (perhaps still is!) a contentious issue in the town. I can see it was a bit fuzzy though, so I've rewritten my earlier effort and I think my new version makes the situation clearer and shows the distinction.
(I was also trying to point people towards the distinction between different types of county, and the different roles they play by referring to them by the technical terms administrative, ceremonial and traditional counties, and pointing towards those articles in Wikipedia).
Have a read at my new version and see what you think - hopefully you'll like the new version more!
PS I agree with your removal of the sentence about the traditional county in the Lancashire article - I was going to do it myself (I didn't write it, I just moved it). The problem is that there is only one page for 'Lancashire' , a term which relates to two different areas according to which type of county you're referring to. We'll just have to make it clear each time the difference is important, and refer to the ceremonial [ie modern] or traditional [ie old] county specifically. Aquilina 13:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Having looked at you edit's. Are you doing this as part of the Campaign for Real lancashire?--IanDavies 14:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- No, I have no agenda. It's just that it's more complicated a situation than saying "Southport is in Merseyside" makes out. That is true, but it's not the full picture at all.
Please clarify what you feel is wrong with adding the extra information. It doesn't contradict your version, just gives a fuller picture. Aquilina 16:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Aquilina 17:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with the content but I think it should be in either a section of it's own or the History section. The status in Merseyside is a fact of life. An easier way to do it would be to produce a good article on the debate from a National POV.--IanDavies 20:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- If you think it should be in a section of its own, that's where you should have put it rather than simply reverting! - it's basic wikiquette, and far more constructive. I would disagree with putting it in the history section, as Southport's status within the *traditional* county of Lancashire is still current [just as much a fact of life as its presence in the *administrative* county of Merseyside], and relevant - many people in Southport still give their county as Lancashire, and for this reason alone it deserves clarification and explanation. Southport's status in both of these different types of counties is not a POV matter - it's plain fact.
-
- I will put the information in a separate section; if you disagree with this version, please edit it constructively or, if you feel you must revert it, why not RfC it at the same time? Hopefully this will be a good compromise option, but if this fails we might as well try and seek mediation. Aquilina 15:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I did edit constritivly I spelt out the exact Historical relationship and modern one. It is you edits which seek to give some offical status to the taditional counties that is bad editing. --IanDavies 16:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Either way, the current version should hopefully be ok for both of us. There is no mention of Lancashire till the new third section. If not, please just edit the *specific* bits you disagree with, rather than reverting the lot, as I've added extra stuff [about the merge with Bootle and so on] which shouldn't be lost. Aquilina 16:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It's fine with me.--IanDavies 18:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
It seems to me that both the current administrative status of Southport and its position within a traditional county are key aspects of the town's identity, and therefore should be mentioned in the introduction. I hope that my edit reflects this from a neutral point of view, and avoids offence to the partisans of the new and the old. Countersubject 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] npov
The page smacks of an advert for southport, specifically on the transport side of things. I think we should point out that there is no direct rail link to Preston and the town is not well connected by road.
- Moved this section to the end of the page. New items are by convention appended to the page. Countersubject 11:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Location of Steve Jones's Photography
I see from the page's history that there's some uncertainty about the location of SJ's photography. Under or over water? Is this significant? Have I been away from Southport for too long? Countersubject 00:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Southport in Relation to Surrounding Areas
I've removed the paragraph 'It is called Souwie by the Scousers' from the intoduction, added by 82.152.209.70 at 11:32, 18th July, as it doesn't really fit in the introduction. Perhaps it could belong in a new section on the interaction of Southport with its surrounding areas, from a number of angles: economy, society, geography, language etc. BTW - Wikipedia encourages those who edit pages to do so through a Wikipedia account. Countersubject 12:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pier Picture
If anyone could upload a picture of the pier for the Southport Pier article I would appreciate it. --Paul E. Ester 01:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Just spotted your request. Will add one for you as soon as I can register. --81.129.235.13 (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)newuser-appleman
I have just got a few shots to go on of the pier. Just need to scan them now. Also need to sign up to upload them. But do you want up to date only or old photos as well? --81.129.235.13 (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Signing-up-tomorrow
[edit] Rail- Present
Why is there a load of stuff about Pleasureland in the rail section? Should we make a Pleasureland section, or mention it in economy?
[edit] Population
I have added up the Ward statistics on the UK National Statistics website for the 7 wards that cover Southport within Sefton to come up with an accurate figure for the population (see reference on article).
- On the subject of the UK Office of National Statistics, could it be worth mentioning that Southport is home to one of its four branches, at Smedley Hydro? ONS is a relatively significant government agency, and to my knowlege, one of the towns largest employers. 81.156.205.69 (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Southport Reporter
The para on the Southport Reporter under History verges on a commercial, and seems to have undertones of the rivalry between local internet-based media. The only think that prevented me from removing it was its claims for notability. Are these well-founded? If not, then the para should be removed. If they are, then it should be shortened, and perhaps moved elsewhere on the page. Countersubject 00:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Removed. Countersubject 12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've found and moved another paragraph very similar to the above from the History section (again!) to a new Media section. Have also merged to Sports a para on the Marine Lake 24 Hour Dinghy Race which was irrelevantly duplicted in the History section (!) Snowy 1973 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not rivalry between local internet-based media... Southport Reporter is documented as a newspaper and is listed on the BBC websites. Leave it alown! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1takepics2 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid to say sites like the one you wish to add are in breach of Wikipedia's policy and is considered a link farm. Also the link you provide does not give any evidence to the contrary. Galloglass 18:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
How does it? in that case remove Rock FM and Southport Visitor! What eveidence do you require? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1takepics2 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
So the BBC is not a responsible judge of who is media and who are not media outlets? --1takepics2 18:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to add.... How is it a considered a link farm? Get your facts correct! Please also leve the post ref to the BBC site or is the BBC website a link farm? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/3754282.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1takepics2 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- I would recommend you read Wikipedia is not a link farm. This gives a clear indication of what is and what is not appropriate to be added to Wikipedia pages. Simply put, we are not an internet directory, not even for local internet news. Galloglass 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- (edit conflict - I was going to say...) Have a good read of external links and spam. Your edits make you appear to be a single-purpose account, with that purpose being to publicise a couple of web sites, and you have set off more than one person's 'spam radar'. Have a good read, then come back here (not the article) to suggest your additions, and let the local editors decide. Mr Stephen 18:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
-
I have and I stand by them.... Southport has 3 main media outlets... as it says on the BBC page. See Southport Visitor and Southport Reporter. Pleas note no listing of the Champion.
Also the Southport Reporter is like the Liverpool Echo... it covers more than one area, it covers Merseyside... hence my postings. If the Liverpool Echo is listed all over, why not a rivel. I know what spam is and --- well if you consider adding and correcting wrong info as SPAM... well... GET A LIFE...
I am... I have had it with Wikipedia. AS a quote that Oxford Uni. said "A group of people who think they are always correct, even when wrong. = Wikipedia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1takepics2 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Last note. If the local editors are so good then why does the local pages for this area say " This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." Could it be that no ref. are given? Also information is deleted.
Also don't warn me... just ban me as I am not going back on here for real information anymore... I just do not like being told as soon as I post that I am Spaming... hence why I am cross. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1takepics2 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I have read this and think that takeapic2 has a point. Why is the Liverpool Echo not commercial yet another is? It is a bit odd, but I have added an online section. This is not "link farming" as it is an important development in the Towns History and also in the development of the media. To back up their clams I have found countless reports via google about them, and yes the BBC even has them listed. takepics2 is correct! It looks like some on here are just not 100% as to what can be read into the term "link farm" when sites like the Champion and Liverpool Echo can be listed, but other can not. That reads more on the lines of being "commercial" in its intent. I agree, under history is incorrect though. But the link about the WLYC 24 hour race was backing up the information on the posting about the race. Odd. That is why I have added a new section called online! That should stop the problems... But it might now open the door to "link farming", but it looks like the best way to go. Also the online site is very interesting as the size of Southport is so small, yet it has more websites than most towns of its size in the UK. --81.129.235.13 (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)newuser PS sorry goofed up on adding this section... I am new so sorry about that.
- The essential difference is that the Liverpool Echo is a News website that also contains a small amount of advertising were as this particular website is an Advertising one that also contains a small amount of news. - Galloglass 15:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Check you facts, Southport Reporter has only one banner advert! Liverpool Echo has lots of adverts. Southport Reporter is 98% news and information! Gallo, you are just plain wrong. Stop and think before you type! --81.129.235.13 (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)newuser ,,,
-
- Also noted you say "Resident of Ormskirk, Lancashire."... stop posting on a Southport page when you do not live in that area. I am from Southport! --81.129.235.13 (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)new user - martin
-
-
- I would very much recommend reading WP:CIVIL as well as WP:NOT. I'm sure you'll find both very informative and helpfull in making future posts here. Cheers - Galloglass 01:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
-
See my post asking for your references as to why you are making edit it with out discussion.
- Please read WP:LINKS. This states explicitly the policy I am enforcing here. Also please to not make personal attacks and unfounded acusations as they will be removed. And finally not living in Southport is not a disqualification from editing these pages. Thank you. - Galloglass 02:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
We why attack me then?
I have made it clear that the point is that the sites listed are not a violation of the rules. It was not a personal attack, more a question about you political editing. That is allowed. The reason why I said that you are not from Southport is key to my questions? You have not done you reserch and that is a fact. The sites I am talking about are Southport ones. If you remove one why not remove Southport-online.co.uk? That is a SPAM from what I can see. Also Liverpool Echo on your way of looking at things is not about Southport as it have Liverpool news in it. So to are the BBC sites etc. I am trying to make a point that is correct and you are taking it as a personal attack. It is not and I am sorry if you feel that way. I am making a point that is correct and you are not giving real information that I can see and back up my facts with. You do not back you information up. That is why I want it discussed and allowed before it is edited! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.235.13 (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly I have in no way attacked you. Secondly I have, if you check removed the Southport online link, and lastly, all I am doing is checking which external links meet the set policy or wikipedia and which fail, then removing the failed ones. I do not make this policy. It is done only after much debate and whether or not I agree with it I am boud to follow it. I'm sorry you believe I have some ulterior motive, but I don't. Btw if you check the Liverpool page you will not find the Liverpool Echo listed there in the external links, probably because someone takes a stricker view of the external links policy than myself. - Galloglass 02:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Quote: Can I ask why you twice re-added the Southport Online link when I had removed it prior to you even mentioning it over an hour a go when you obviously objected to it so strongly? - Galloglass 02:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I was re adding the link I added as you removed that. Ok, sorry if I sounded cross. I think that Southport Reporter is worth listing and so to are some of the others. Ok, if any of the links Southport Reporter is the most impotent as it is a newspaper and is about the area. I am cross as it looks from my view as you did not read that site.
Both of us mean well. Lets call it a miss understanding for two trying to to the best for this site.
But please add Southport Reporter as it is not right to list the other two papers with out it and then see what others think. The last time no one replayed and when they did they just got egnored. that is why people get cross. --81.129.235.13 (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)new user Martin...
- You may have thought you were adding the Southport Reporter. In reality you were repeatedly adding Southport Online instead. Then to go on and remove large sections of Media, which I might add I played no part in writing will simply result in you being taken less seriously in future. As regards the Southport Reporter, yes I do agree that it is now much improved and probably does warrant inclusion now the advertising/news ratio has changed. But you were not just adding the Reporter, you were adding Southort.gb and all the other pure link farm sites that are strictly forbidden, hence my earlier reversion. I do hope you will contribute more to wikipedia but please be aware that there are guidelines that need to be followed as it is, after all, an encyclopaedia. - Galloglass 03:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Lest call it quites for now. I am just trying to improve the section and agree about with what you say about listing all the sites. I was, as I said trying to compromise with what is an increasingly gray area. Noted about removing sections. Adding new one, that is why.
As I am new, I have made a mistake not explaining on the edit thing as I could not fit it all in. --81.129.235.13 (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Martin
[edit] Is my Memory Faulty or Correct? Someone please help!
Having been brought up in Southport in the 1950s I seem to remember there was a large explosion at a petrol station not far from Meols Cop Secondary School. This would have been around 1957. I'll continue to attempt to find out if this actually happened.
Soarhead77 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Media
Added the following paragraph, which was subsequently removed by 91.109.13.49:
- "In addition, there are four other local radio stations that transmit to Southport: BBC Radio Merseyside, Radio City 96.7, Juice 107.6, and Rock FM 97.4."
On reflection, is this relevant to the article? I think it is, but understand that you could argue that more stations should be included. Any opinions? Snowy 1973 13:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Added a note that other forms of media are available in the area, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.235.13 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notable people
Notable people in Southport
Disappointed to find that the list of notable people from or resident in Southport has recently been edited without, in my view, proper justification. A good example of the kind of arrogant 'I know better than you' messing about that means Wikipedia is so much less valuable and reliable than it could be.
There are no firm rules on what constitutes 'notability' as far as I am aware. So, it's a subjective thing and therefore one person's opinion is as valid as another as long as people are not merely listing their friends and neighbour, etc.
However, some of the alterations made do not even make objective sense; the writer Tony Jordan has been a figure of considerable influence in British TV drama for 10 years or more and has had more impact in his field than, say, the guitarist Ollie Halsall. I'm wondering if the person making the edits is unaware that Tony Jordan grew up in Southport, and his parents still live in Ainsdale.
When the 'notable people' list was first added to the Southport page, it was to give an idea of people who not were not only born in the town but who, by living here, have made an impact on the town's identity. By that token, people like Dr Barnardo, Kenny Dalglish and Alan Hansen should certainly still be included. It's ridiculous to say that because someone was not born in the town, they don't have an influence. This is information of general interest.
Also, I don't believe that just because a person does not have their own Wikipedia page they should not be included. The best example of this is the Rev Marcus Morris, a figure of great influence in the field of comics publishing. There's a certain kind of weird paradox at work when someone is deemed unimportant because they're not on Wikipedia.
- Unfortunately so many marginal and non famous people have been added to this list that many users who read this list judged its was ok to add their friends, mother, sister brother etc. Now the main test for inclusion on Wikipeidia as a 'Notable Person' is pretty strict and laid down in WP:BIO. Many of those that were removed failed this test, some simply because of any lack of referencing on their article, others because their connection was minimal. I would very like to include Marcus Morris on the notable list but with no article extant there seems little chance of it meeting the test of WP:BIO at the present time. When such an article is created, you can be sure he will belong on the list. By all means propose any individual for re-inclusion here and we can all discuss their merits. Thanks Galloglass 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- I happened to see this conversation, and have now created Marcus Morris stub page - certainly notable, as he's in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and there were 3 different redlinks to him already. (Almost anyone in UK could have done this, as most public libraries provide online access to ODNB, from home, through their subscription.) PamD (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References
I have just added [1] section to the page to fit in with Wikipedia rules for references. If any one can add more please do. The more we have that backs up our information on this page the better it will be, as it will comply with the ref. rules on Wiki better. --81.129.235.13 (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)newuser-Appleman-Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.235.13 (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Magazines And Newspapers
Just added Lancashire Life but it does not appear to have a Wiki page. I think it should, so I am not 100% if I have missed it... Does it have an entry? If not should we add one? Can any one help?
- This has been added to mainspace as Lancashire Life. Nk.sheridan Talk 22:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Also what are the other two magazines in the Southport area. I know that the Champ. and Vis. do one each... If anyone could add them I think that would be fantastic. --81.129.235.13 (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Appelman-martin Sorry not been able to register tonight as I had hoped... Just a quick added section... Does any one know the start date and end date of the Southport Star newspaper? Also the Southport Advertiser? I have it on file in one of the books, but I can not locate it. I am also adding Coastlines, a magazine made by Sefton Council Ranger Service. --81.129.235.13 (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Will get to register some day.
[edit] Cleanup of Article
Hi all, I had a go at the lead today. I'm surprised this article got a B-Class rating. If we want it to go to GA class as is Runcorn it needs more work.Nk.sheridan Talk 23:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
