Talk:Grand Pier, Weston-super-Mare

Somerset Low‑importance

	Somerset portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset 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.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should we use Past Tense for this article?[edit]

Since the pier is destroyed, should we use Past Tense? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pier is not destroyed. Only the pavilion has been destroyed. --SpunkyBob (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just what I was about to say. The reconstruction section needs some work to make it past-tense though. Ian¹³ /t 20:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North West Tower[edit]

Can somebody please explain to me how the fire could have started in the "North West Tower" when the "North West Tower" is clearly visible intact halfway through the inferno.

The pier is on the Bristol Channel. Its shore-facing side is EAST, its sea-facing side WEST. This was CLEARLY the North EAST tower.

Sean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmiller (talk • contribs) 08:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So glad I'm not the only one who thought that! Hopefully things will become clearer as interim reports are published by the fire service. --SpunkyBob (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion is because the pavilion is located at the western end of the pier. I have updated the article in the meantime and provided links to the fire service official statements on the fire. --SpunkyBob (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I believe also it is the north east - I think I wrote it wrong when I added that bit (whoops!). The new phrasing seems more sensible :). Ian¹³ /t 16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new phrasing is a bit confusing really - I mean "which broke out at the foot of the right-hand tower on the shoreward end of the pavilion." - okay then, is that looking TOWARDS the pavilion FROM the shore, or FROM the pavilion TOWARDS the shore? Far better to use a compass point. Shouldn't be too hard for some expert to figure out if it was the north east or north west tower. In fact, just done it myself - look at maps.live.com , search for Weston super Mare, go to an aerial view and you'll see that the relevant tower (top right) is to the north east. Anyone care to confirm? --Gaunt (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. North-east it is. Ian¹³ /t 16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

I started editing this page adding references etc and then found the whole of the section on the 1st fire was a direct copy & paste from Pier History. I've added the copyvio notice but this section needs to be completely rewritten.— Rod ^talk 16:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Time to rebuild the 1930 fire section. I'll take a first pass. --SpunkyBob (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from this URL: Archived version. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery[edit]

According to Wikipedia's guidance on images, galleries should not be used unless there is a good reason to do so. I feel that a gallery of images of the pier fire and its aftermath are a good reason to use a gallery in this article. For that reason I have re-instated the gallery, which was removed earlier today, but would appreciate input from others on whether it should be kept. --TimTay (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who removed the gallery, I personally feel that galleries should be removed from articles, and created on commons instead. That's what it's there for. That being said, I feel this gallery is rather unnecessary - we have a photo of the pier before the fire, one of it on fire, and several of the wreckage. There really only needs to be one of each, and they could easily be added inline. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move request by[edit]

TRWB (talk · contribs) moved this page to Grand Pier by direct copy-paste. I reverted it, as I feel we need to get consensus before moving the article. As far as I'm concerned, people don't know the pier as "The Grand Pier", it's the WSM Grand Pier. I'm sure plenty of piers around the world claim to be grand, and i feel that while Grand Pier was a redirect to here already, it's not what people usually call it. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Mattbuck (talk · contribs), I do not wish to cause an argument or irritate you, so let us not get off on the wrong foot here. As a resident of Weston-super-Mare all my life, I can tell you that everybody here knows the pier as the Grand Pier, and every article that covered July's fire also referred to it as Grand Pier. Further to your comment that "[You're] sure plenty of piers around the world claim to be grand", I would like to point out that 'Grand Pier' is this particular pier's official name and always has been. As far as I'm aware there is not another (at least, prominent) pier with this title. I'm sure, similarly, many piers could be toward the west of their town, yet there is only one West Pier. No conflict or offence meant, but I would like to see this article redirected to Grand Pier. TRWB -(talk) 01:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that Mattbuck (talk · contribs) appears concerned about the history of the Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier page. I would suggest, however, that there is not a lot of detailed history behind the page, since most of the article's information was added following July's fire. I look forward to Mattbuck's reply. -TRWB (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have lived in or around Weston since 1980 and have always known it as "The Grand Pier" and use the same phrase in conversation. If we are to rename the article to anything it should be "The Grand Pier, Weston-super-Mare" or "Grand Pier, Weston-super-Mare". As for history, I'd like to see it expanded much more. Maybe I'll get around to doing that some time... --TimTay (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly you may wish to title it with its town name after it. My suggestion in retitling the page was that most people know it simply as Grand Pier and it has always been officially titled this. The pier is fairly well known anyway, and has of course reached wide attention recently because of the fire, and it does seem rather like a well-known should have an article titled in its own right rather than with its town name added to it. Obviously, people searching 'Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier' and 'Weston Pier' will be directed to the article titled Grand Pier anyway and will come to learn that it is titled as such. Also, since article title Grand Pier is readily available and there appears not to be another Grand Pier, I thought the article might as well exist under this title. I await further opinions of course. -TRWB (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I meant article edit history rather than any actual content. As for the argument from proximity, I'm not surprised you wouldn't add the WSM when you live in WSM, any more than you'd talk about Clevedon Pier rather than "the Pier" while in Clevedon. Whatever it gets moved to, I just think there should be some discussion about it first. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally I don't want to seem as if I'm just changing the title of the article for the sake of it. My decision came after having looked through the other pier articles on Wikipedia, to find that for the most part, if the pier's name alternates from that of its location, the article is usually titled after the pier's name. As for edit history, there is not a great deal of it behind this article since it is fairly recent creation. If the article is changed to Grand Pier now, the recorded edit history for the page can grow from here on, as there will undoubtedly be much to report as the pier is rebuilt. Also, retitling the article as Grand Pier shouldn't affect users finding the article by keying Weston Pier into google, since the article contains the town name within the first line anyway. Nevertheless, I can see why my abrupt changing of the page may have been seen as a little rash and have since tried my best to explain the reasoning. -TRWB (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a new title is agreed, see Help:Moving a page rather than copy & pasting it - this preserves the edit history (which goes back to June 2006) & talk page attached to the article. As far as the history of the pier goes I think it is important to avoid Wikipedia:Recentism. This history was more extensive until 3rd Aug 2008 when [I spotted] large chunks of it were a copyvio.— Rod ^talk 16:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page by the proper procedure. I know some users were concerned about dropping the 'Weston-super-Mare' in the title so I moved the page to 'Grand Pier, Weston-super-Mare'. -TRWB (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. --TimTay (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grand Pier, Weston-super-Mare. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 04:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grand Pier, Weston-super-Mare. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 10:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]