Talk:Christchurch, Dorset

Query

Any info on "eam" for "(two) rivers" in Old English, and cognates in other languages? I'm intrigued. Xipirho (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I do not know. I learned a new word today though! cognate --Senra (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick look at OE to English translator suggests eÁm Strong Masculine Noun eÁm m an eam uncle chiefly on the mother's side avunculu. --Senra (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

... and a look at Oxford reference online premium via my local library reveals

[Christchurch]... was known formerly as Twynam ‘Place between the Rivers’. It was subsequently renamed Christecerce ‘Church of Christ’ from the Old English Crist and cirice ‘church’

Everett-Heath, John (2010). "Christchurch Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names". Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Cambridgeshire Libraries. http://www.oxfordreference.com.ipac.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t209.e1464. Retrieved 25 June 2010.  --Senra (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Quomps - apology

I remembered this as The Quomps, but then found it on a map and misread it as The Quomp. I have now used a magnifying glass. (O.S. Outdoor Leisure series map No. 22, New Forest.)) Apologies for this lapse from the standard I aim at.

While writing, is there any way that the Article Assessment can be dated on this page? I found the History page shows it as November 2007, and some of the issues on the assessment may now have been covered. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

This is not a review. Just some comments from an interested editor. I have only been a wikipedia editor for 3 weeks so take what I am about to say accordingly. In any event, my comments should be taken constructively as intended.

1. Not sure why you have not used {{infobox UK place ...}} same as Bournemouth, Poole for example.
2. WP:Lead seems very short. Compare with Little Thetford, Bournemouth, Poole etc.
3. There is excellent detailed prose throughout. However, the sections do not follow the structure outlined in "How to write about settlements."
4. History. It seems long. Whilst wikipedia does not like arranging history into sub-sections according to century, the style-guide does suggest subheadings. In any case, my view is your history needs sub-dividing to make it easier to read. Certainly put the population figures in a section of its own (demography) as per How to write about settlements.
5. The gallery will be questioned. Wikipedia seems to prefer images throughout the article only. I have seen many exceptions (cf. Ely, Cambridgeshire) though. Anyway, see Image galleries
6. Consider transport as a section of its own as per How to write about settlements
7. consider {{Geographic location ...}} in the geography section to place Christchurch in relation to other places in Dorset.
8. consider {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} in references to make references go to three columns (or less) automatically (except on IE browsers) but get Firefox anyway :). Also consider separating notes and references using tagged references. See Little Thetford for an example. Basically, the notes contain brief details plus page numbers which are referenced to the work (book, journal etc) preventing long lists of almost the same text in reference list
9. consider a See also section

Now I am going to be honest here. I have not read the prose; checked the references; checked the wikilinks; checked images; or checked anything I have not mentioned above (erm, yet!). If the above helps great. If not, feel free to say so on my talk page. And remember, I have only been a wikipedian for three weeks.

--Senra (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Had a crack at the lead - draft here.

--Senra (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As an incorporated place, this article should use {{Infobox settlement}} as it has many more available fields for statistics and codes. It is used on the Poole article and could be copied and adapted from there. MRSC (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nazi germany

A minor point I suspect. The word Nazi in the lead and body of the article, when referring to one of the protagonists in WWII, should read Nazi Germany. It was not the Nazi political party itself which directly threatened England. --Senra (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you're quite right, I just thought it read better. I made the link go to Nazi Germany but that was probably insufficient. I will have another look at it. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Second review

As requested, here is a second look at the article to follow up on the Peer review I did back in July.

• There are still 3 or so dab links that need to be fixed - see here -Fixed.
• There is also one dead link found with this tool hereThere are now two dead links. -Fixed.
• There are still some refs that do not have complete information - for example current ref 1 is just a link and title and needs at least a publisher and access date. -Fixed
• Or current ref 62 is "This is Dorset". http://www.this-is-dorset.co.uk/christchurch.htm. Retrieved 30 July 2010." and needs a publisher. By the way, what makes this a Relaible source? - Replaced 'dubious' reference.
• I also note this same webpage is used later as ref 87 - assuming it is a RS, then the refs should be combined into one. - N.A.
• This is much better in terms of references, but there are a few places that still need refs Retirement homes, such as McCarthy and Stone, and luxury waterside apartments now stand where there was once farms, factories and boat yards and it is hard to imagine that Christchurch was once an important trading port and prospered due to its industry and manufacturing. reads like opinion or WP:OR without a ref. - Toned down and 3 refs added.
• Twin towns also needs a ref (or more)- Referenced
• It is OK to have some refs in the middle of a sentence, especially if they are after punctuation. Theu should be the exception, rather than the rule
• There are still a lot of short (one or two sentences) paragraphs, especially in Demographics and the sections after it. These disrupt the flow of the article, and should be combined with others, or perhaps expanded. - short sentences combined, expanded or deleted.
• Why does Railways need three separate one sentence paragraphs, and not just one paragraph with three sentences -Done
• Bullet point lists often read better as prose. - All bulleted sections converted to prose.
• What is the organizational basis of Notable persons? It does not seem to be alphabetical or chronological (two most common ways to organize such sections) -Section in chronological order except where it has been convenient to group family members together.
• Giving the price per hour for parking seems to be non-encylcopedic - see WP:NOT too - Removed
• Overall this looks better - keep up the good work!

If a link is dead, look for replacements for it. The original website may just have moved (so I just checked and the bus timetable is dead - my guess is a new timetable is probably up on the web somewhere). You can also check the archives at the Wayback Machine or WebCite (the latter website lets you back things up). See also WP:LINKROT Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Airfield and historical districts

I think there is too much about the airfield in here. The text should be added to RAF Christchurch leaving a short summary here and a link to RAF Christchurch.

I think this article should have a little section listing the historical districts of Christchurch:

• Blackwater
• Burton
• Highcliffe
• Hurn
• Iford
• Mudeford
• Purewell
• Somerford
• Stanpit
• Tuckton
• Wick

I think eventually they will all have their own articles.--Penbat (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I started to copy some info onto the RAF Christchurch page when, as you now know, I came across an anomally. I think adding historical districts is a good idea but I'd like to take a look at what WP Settlements says first. BTW I think Holdenhurst was part of Christchurch at one time.--Ykraps (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would make sense as little places like Blackwater are already done. I suspect "Friars Cliff" was a post WW2 invented name. I note that nothing similar has been done for Bournemouth for places like Kinson but they are not so overtly historical as Xchurch districts.--Penbat (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the Bournemouth historical districts are all separate articles (see Category:Geography of Bournemouth) and it includes Wick and Holdenhurst. But they are tucked away in the Category:Geography of Bournemouth category. The Christchurch districts are tucked away in the Category:Districts of Christchurch, Dorset category which is itself a subcategory of Category:Geography of Christchurch, Dorset.

So the issue is not whether the Christchurch districts i have listed above should be separate articles (yes they should although Wick has already been done), but if there should be a short section in this article listing the districts to give them more prominence. The same point applies to the Bournemouth article as well.

So articles on Iford, Purewell, Somerford, Stanpit and Tuckton remain to be done and maybe Friars Cliff.--Penbat (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Penbat, I've left a message at BarretBonden's talk page as I'm interested to hear his take on this. I personally think the districts should go in the article, possibly in the geography section or maybe the history section (if we're going to mention historical districts). I'm not sure about Friars Cliff. Is it marked on a map? I thought it was just made up by the residents so they could disassociate themselves from Mudeford. --Ykraps (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes Friars Cliff is marked on the map but it is arguable if it deserves its own article although at least some of the housing in the area I think is pre WW2. One of the residential roads has a George V post box in it.--Penbat (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The presence of the George V postbox would seem to confirm that the housing is pre WWII (pre '36 in fact) as the houses must surely have been there before the postbox.--Ykraps (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I would just link the districts where necessary throughout the article (even if they are still red links) and perhaps add a small paragraph in the geography section similar to Oldham#Divisions and suburbs or include them in a list similar to those in Peterborough#Geography and Poole#Geography. Barret (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We may as well have a Christchurch template as per Oldham#Divisions and suburbs.--Penbat (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ive done a sandbox template: User:Penbat/template:Areas of Christchurch, Dorset. Any comments from anybody ? Seems tempting to add other features of Christchurch to the same template. --Penbat (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Christchurch Castle

Firstly excellent work on the article much improved. I note a contradiction on dates of the castle From the History section: : Sometime early in the 12th century, Christchurch got its castle. Originally a wooden fort built by Richard de Redvers, first cousin to King Henry I, it was later rebuilt in stone by Baldwin de Redvers to resist King Stephen during the civil war with the Empress Matilda.

From Landmarks: Christchurch castle Christchurch Castle is of Norman origin and of a motte and bailey construction. There has been a castle on this spot since 924 AD when; after Aethelwold captured the town ramparts in 901 AD, Edward the Elder decided to fortify the town further with a wooden fort on a motte.[18]

Is the 924AD date proven and is it on the site of the present castle.Phil Whiston (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The 12th century is when the stone keep, which is still standing today, was constructed but it is widely held that there was a wooden fort there prior to this. The reference for the 924 ad date comes from a guide to the Avon Valley Path and the author claims this information comes from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. A number of other sources give the date of the wooden fort as circa 1100 which is quite a bit later. I have been searching for a second source but haven't been able to find one and it is likely that I will end up rewriting the sentence to make it less definite. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

New Stanpit stub article

For those interested I have created a new Stanpit stub article.--Penbat (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Penbat/template:Christchurch, Dorset

Ive started a test Christchurch general purpose template User:Penbat/template:Christchurch, Dorset. Seems like a good idea. Any ideas for what else to put into it ? IMO the same ought to be done for Bmouth and Poole.--Penbat (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added some stuff to the template but I see you already know this. You've included Iford and Tuckton which were ceded to Bmth in 1931 and 1895 respectively. If we're including historic districts, should we also include Wick, Hengistbury Head, Pokesdown, Holdenhurst, Holmsley? Pending further investigation, what about Throop, Walkford, Bransgore, Avon? (actually I think Avon was always in Ringwood). You could also add Holmsley to the list of railway stations as this was the original Christchurch stop (known as Christchurch Road).--Ykraps (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Not sure about Verwood. As far as I know it is East Dorset now but was historically part of Cranborne.--Ykraps (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Verwood i think is in the political constituency of Christchurch. Anyway I take it that you approve of the template in principle. I think i may put it in the Christchurch article in expanded form. We dont need to get hung up about the precise content of the template. The template is principally supposed to list active Wikilinks. It may be a long time before these obscure districts get done.--Penbat (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Christchurch, Dorset now created.--Penbat (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not going to happen. Ucucha 12:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Christchurch, Dorset → Christchurch — As this is the English section of the encyclopedia, I would have thought that this page should be the prime topic. Homan's Copse (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Are you kidding. This is the English language version of Wiki not English version. Christchurch NZ is better known internationally and much bigger and a capital and im sure the NZ boys would object anyway. --Penbat (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Even though I am from Christchurch, Dorset; if I put Christchurch into WP:Search, I would expect to be taken to Christchurch NZ. If you are proposing to change this I would have to oppose it.--Ykraps (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Clearly WP:POINT. The suggested move is not for the primary use of the name. Yes, the is the English version of Wikipedia, but that does not mean that only British uses can be primary topics. There are other places that use the English language, like that small place across the pond that, I think is called America and Australia. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even if the majority of Kiwis didn't speak English, this borough in England would not usurp the primary use of the name from the city in New Zealand. —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Ykraps, the New Zealand city is the first place that comes to mind, and even then I might think of the Oxford college before I think of the Dorset town. Green Giant (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. The NZ city is clearly the primary topic here. PC78 (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy close; nominator appears to be making WP:POINT-y nominations in protest of the request at Talk:Dover. Powers ^T 12:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Christchurch, Dorset/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This is one great article! I will review it after the Mitt Romney article is concluded. I have high hopes because the article is so good! TeacherA (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We look forward to hearing your comments. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears that TeacherA has abandoned, so I will take over the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A station was built in the town near the existing one in 1862 and was served by a branch line from Ringwood. seems a little clumsy, we have read that the nearest station was some way away, so why was a new station nearby needed? Christchurch joined the mainline in 1883 and a new station was built This needs clarification.{[done}}

   - The original station was some 7 miles outside of town. When a branch line was constructed from Ringwood, a station was built in the town close to where the modern station now stands. When the mainline eventually came through the town, a third station was built and the second station eventually fell into disuse. I need to have a bit of a think as to how I can make this sentence less ambiguous while still keeping it succinct.

   - Now clarified, I think.

   It includes large rural areas including Bournemouth International Airport and the parishes of Burton and Hurn. Clumsy phrasing - "it includes" - "including"Y Done

   - Done.

   "Conservative" could do with wikification at first mention: "The Mayor of Christchurch for 2010–2011 is Conservative councillor Nicholas Geary"Y Done

   - If you mean an internal link, then the word 'Conservative' is linked in the previous sentence "...resulting in the Conservatives retaining overall control with 17 seats'. Do you want it linked again or are you talking about something different? #::::NP, Missed the arlier link

   Christchurch is situated on the south coast of England at 50°44′N 1°47′W / 50.73°N 1.78°W / 50.73; -1.78. We already have the coordinates at the top of the article and in the infobox. I don't think they are needed here.Y Done

   - Removed.

   Christchurch Harbour is a large salt marsh I don't think this is accurate, how can a harbour be a marsh?Y Done

   - Rewritten. "contains large areas of salt marsh...".

   Christchurch's town centre encompasses a mixture of traditional public houses, restaurants, coffee shops, quaint houses and historic listed buildings. "quaint"?Y Done

   - Replaced 'quaint' with 'antiquated'.

   The Grade I listed Christchurch Castle is of Norman origin and of a motte and bailey construction. "motte and bailey " was a mound surrounded by a palisade, the stone walls would be from a later more substantial construction. Perhaps you meant to say "was originally of"Y Done

   - The walls of the keep were stone, the walls around the bailey were constructed of wood. I have however added the words 'originally of' to avoid confusion.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Bournemouth Airport is among the busiest international airports in the country and is an important economic generator for the region. Owned and operated by Manchester Airports Group, the airport handles 800,000 passengers annually and supports around 900 full-time equivalent jobs which contribute more than £24 million to the local economy. The cite (ref #83[1] does not support the claim that "Bournemouth Airport is among the busiest international airports in the country" Y Done

   - Replaced with http://www.dorsetforyou.com/323485

   Other provided references chck out and are reliable sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Broad thorough and focussed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Tagged, licensed , FUR rationales and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, a few relatively minor points to clear up. There should be little problem in sorting these out. On hold for seven days for these issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

   Thank you for addressing those points, I am now happy to pass this as a Good Article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

   Great news, thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Pass. TeacherA (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)