Talk:Lord Street, Southport

Merseyside High‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Highways: United Kingdom Low‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways 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.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force.

"Great" shopping street

I've just removed a claim that Lord Street is "one of the great shopping streets of Northern England". As written, this is puffery. The claim needs a citation to support it (at which point the article can accurately say something like "X rated Lord Street as one of the top 10 shopping streets in northern England in 2012").

I'm entirely happy with the claim being restored again, but per WP:MINREF, this claim needs an inline citation, and per WP:PROVEIT, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who restores the claim.

—me_and 13:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD it's reasonable to discuss this, but you seem to be interpreting that as "Make my change to a long-stable article, but when it's reverted just make it immediately again". That's called edit-warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article is stable doesn't mean that it's good; uncited material is subject to being challenged at any time, regardless of how long it's been present. I'm not invoking WP:BRD, I'm invoking WP:V, which is one of Wikipedia's core policies. I agree that Lord Street is a great shopping street, but Wikipedia isn't a space for editorialising – if we can't back an opinion up with a good source, it doesn't belong. —me_and 15:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for Lord Street being called Lord Street

Can anyone provide the history of why Lord Street is called Lord Street? A Southport friend has told me that the local story is that a lord lived at either end; however, if so, who were the lords and where did they live? Is there any alternative explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlierad (talk • contribs) 13:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lord Street, Southport. 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/20110611172053/http://www.sefton.gov.uk/pdf/ER_Commemorative%20Booklet.pdf to http://www.sefton.gov.uk/pdf/ER_Commemorative%20Booklet.pdf

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) 16:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Influence on Parisian Architecture

There is no evidence for the assertion that Prince Louis Napoleon lived on Lord Street in 1838. The references given are to: a commemorative booklet published by Sefton Borough Council, which does not itself reference any evidence; an article in The Scotsman, which reports the views of the late Quintin Hughes, who wasn't an historian and didn't publish any supporting evidence; and a comic piece about Southport in The Guardian, which reports a "tradition" that the Prince "stayed the night in Southport".

I'm inclined to remove the section.

Spodatus (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Hughes was an architect though, and would be seen as an adequate source for this, even if we qualify it as "Quentin Hughes said". He was also a respected historian, albeit of military fortifications (a founder of the FSG). But what we don't do is the sheer WP:OR of deciding (for ourselves) that Quentin Hughes was wrong, just because we think so. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, "Quentin Hughes said" is not sufficient evidence for the assertion. Even a secondary source is meant to reference its primary sources, or other secondary sources that do so. Quentin Hughes' knowledge of the history of a particular kind of structure is fair enough: he was an architect. That he said something about an historical issue outside of his specialised field, without making available any evidence for it, is another matter entirely. Spodatus (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Find some credible WP:RS which challenges Hughes' views and we can challenge them. But as it is, "One anonymous Wikipedia editor who is neither an architect nor historian has decided that all the sources are wrong" is nothing like enough. Quentin Hughes would be seen as WP:RS until such time as you show a credible reason why not. "I disagree" (and you don't even say why) is not. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]