Talk:Bournemouth

Poole reference reductions

As I cut some details from the article to keep the length down it occurred to me that some people might think there was a political motive in my reducing the number of references to Poole (X is really in Poole and not in Bournemouth, etc). My motive for removing some of these references is that some of them are repeated, and that some of them are excessive detail in a long article, particularly if they are already mentioned in the article of the relevant subject. While it is an interesting phenomenon that deserves a mention, well to me at least, it doesn't need half a dozen mentions in an article that is already very long. That is my only concern here. Britmax (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. At present I think there are only two references to the phenomenon, in the lead and in the economy. There used to be half a dozen. Good work. LordHarris 19:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Economy

I know that the economy section is going to need a lot of work; the listing of companies based in Bournemouth is arbitary. Much better would be to form an overview of the sectors and topics with breadth (e.g. employment (see reference note)). The table could be improved, and the referenced source's value is debatable. A better source, I believe, is this one: http://urbecon.co.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/TheBournemouthEconomy2005.pdf. But what does anyone else think? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work to the article so far. I think the table can go, its not particularly clear or useful. I removed and replaced a similar table added by the same user to Poole#Economy a while back. The list of Bournemouth based companies would obviously be better off worked into the prose. Your source seems reliable and very comprehensive but is possibly a little bit out of date. The Bournemouth Council, Dorset County Council and Bournemouth Echo (examples [1] [2] [3]) websites might also be useful references. BarretBonden (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Barret, I agree on the table also. I didn't really check the date of that source, I will still use it but will be sure to include mention of the date. Your sources are much appreciated, and will no doubt come in hand a lot when I get to writing the Economy section. Help doing this, especially from someone who's edited an equivalent article to GA, would be great! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

After some investigating I found a source which might be of worth (could someone check it over). It is reliable, recent and provides a good insight. [4] MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"As of February 2010, Fibrecity is connecting 4,000 homes and businesses a month in Bournemouth to the network and it is hoped that the town will be fully connected by the end of 2010." - is there a source for this, other than Fibrecity themselves (I seriously doubt it is true). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djaychela (talk • contribs) 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find a source to support the statement (said of the Fibrecity network) that "This is part of the National Government's plans for everyone in the UK to have access to 100 Mbit Broadband by 2010." I am not aware that the Government of the United Kingdom has any plans to provide everyone with 100Mbps broadband. If they do, can we have a citation, please? Tagging statement with citation needed, for now, but I think this statement will need to be removed. 79.79.135.250 (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sport

I looked up this article because I found some references to the British Hard Court Championships having been played in Bournemouth (see History of tennis: The first Grand Prix tournament was the British Hard Court Championships played on clay at Bournemouth on 28 April.), but I could not find a mention of tennis in the Sport section. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the subject to add it, but it certainly seems a sufficiently important part of Bournemouth's sport history to be included. Coyets (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Twin Towns

I have found no evidence that Bournemouth is twinned with Târgu Mureş, Romania. Please confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luketh (talk • contribs) 14:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/Council/twin_towns.asp

Bournemouth has two twin towns. Others removed and must stay removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.198.129 (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge "Bournemouth Eye" into Bournemouth as a new section

Proposed originally by Britmax 3 years ago, I agree that the article Bournemouth Eye should be merged into this in a new section, given that it's too small to require its own article. Any thoughts about it? ErKURITA (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It should be merged into the culture and recreation section. The Bournemouth Eye article will likely never be more than a stub. Barret (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't see your replay. Sounds good to me, anyone else? ErKURITA (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I proposed the merge on the main article. Now, what section would be fitting to include this article in? I first thought about Transportation->Air but it doesn't really serve as one. Then I thought about Culture and recreation, giving it its own sub-section. Thoughts? ErKURITA (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I shall proceed with the merge ErKURITA (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Creation of Wessex City

A decade or so ago Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch was going to be merged into one and called Wessex City - or City Wessex. This could have some link when it is discussed about certain things being linked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.18.225 (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Pier

In March I went to Bournemouth and I visited the Pier of Bournemouth and Boscombe (suburb). At the pictures you can see the same Pier but once it's called "Boscombe Pier" and once "Bournemouth Pier". I think that it's the Bournemouth Pier because there is a theatre on it. The Boscombe Pier is much smaller. If you don't agree I can post a photo of Boscombe Pier. Sorry for my bad english. -- Renredam (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• there are three pictures including the piers,
  • One labelled "Bournemouth Beach and Pier" and showing Bournemouth pier
  • One labelled "The Boscombe Pier, built in 1888. Boscombe is a suburb of Bournemouth." Showing Boscombe pier without a theatre (I think before the recent renovation?)
  • One labelled "Bournemouth Pier including the Pier Theatre", showing Bournemouth pier
• Don't see a problem here ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 12:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Foxes, Rabbits, Badgers, and, indeed, Pumas in Bournemouth Wildlife population

I am getting more than a little frustrated at having my edit to the wildlife section removed. There can be no possible reason for deleting the comments on the Fox, Rabbit, Badger, Frog, Toad, Newt and Bat populations. As to the Pumas, I posted verification as requested, which was then removed on copyright grounds. How can I show that both the National Media and the local Police have agreed that there are Pumas in Bournemouth, if I'm not allowed to qoute the proof that I've been asked to provide ? Would somebody PLEASE check the back edits, and then post an ACCEPTABLE version ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.228.165 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you read the comments posted on your talk page? Original research is not allowed - see WP:OR. Then there's the issue of copyright. Your latest contribution was a copy/paste directly from a press article - see WP:COPYVIO for why this is not acceptable. If you want to use sources such as newspaper articles then please summarise the contents and then give the source as a reference. We are hear to help you, we absolutely want you to contribute, but people do get a little tired with editors who don't seem to take notice of what they are told or suggestions they are given. --Simple Bob (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will attempt to come up with something that beats the filters, or whatever. Perhaps there is a distinction to be drawn between the Wikipedia "full timers" and the average interested observer ? Oh, and I think (personaly) that there is a difference between "Original Research" and what I attempted to do with regard to the Bournemouth Wildlife text Be that as it may, if I need to cite the press artical in order to verify the information, then I am going to have to be fairly creative to avoid any direct qoutes. Copyright is important, I admit, but qouting a verifiable newspaper source surely doesn't infringe it ? Ah well, I still love Wikipedia... i'll try harder. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.228.172 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)