Talk:Lowestoft

Neutrality and Tone

This article has numerous quaint, unmistakebly 'Lowestoftian' but unsuitable parts, such as describing new offices as 'swanky', saying a plane 'dropped like a stone' and an unsubstantiated rant about travellers stealing money form the town at the airshow. I have corrected these, but didn't check through whole article so probably more. Feels as though all from same person.

Third River Crossing

• • What does this have to do with the wikipedia articles? More suitable for a Lowestoft forum**

I have lived in Lowestoft for 15 years. I am still an ousider The obsession with traffic problems and certainly the religion of the third river crossing have been the only "campaign" from the locals I have witnessed in those fifteen years. Somehow the fallacy that building their beloved third river crossing will solve the town's problems needs to be stressed - evidence found to include here. After all businesses flock to London, Manchester and many other places which have terrible transport problems; I think all the "traffic stuff" on this page should be removed - of no consequence. OK perhaps just a sentence or two. Including it makes the town (and its inhabitants) look obsessed by an issue of relatively little consequence. The replies to my pointing this out will probably prove me right... What about the lowest education standards in Suffolk? What about the lack of new industries with well paid jobs - so that anyone with qualifications must move? Not a word, not a dicky-bird... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.20.169 (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What's in a name

I recently came back to this article and noticed that any mention of John Edward Hloover has been deleted, and in its place irrelevancies regarding the Yarmouth herring trade. As all Roman Hill pupils had to engage in studies of the beach village, we were all taught that Lowestoft is a consonental shift from 'Hloovers Toft' based on the founder of the beach village.

-- On a similar topic (which is why I put it here - I'm not the above user who failed to sign their comment), I just edited this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowestoft#Waveney_Sunrise_Scheme_And_Associated_Works and removed the false statement regarding no-one knowing who Thomas Crisp was (In relation to Tom Crisp Way's naming). 82.27.16.206 (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sunrise Scheme Neutrality

The following quoted paragraph (Sunrise scheme section) in my opinion lacks neutrality "local government not finding out or asking the wishes of local people, and instead imposing badly thought out, expensive schemes which are if anything detrimental."

Have flagged it for POV Check.

You Decide :)

The fact that these obviously subjective observations are offered as fact disqualify it from serious consideration. Whilst the sunrise scheme has its detractors, it also has its admirers. (But I don't particularly like it).

The Sunrise (or as we like to call it The Sunset) Scheme I live in Lowestoft and none of my family have heard anything good said about the scheme except by the designers, builders and the local council. The money for this and the South Lowestoft Relief Road should have been used for a third crossing. All these two schemes have done is waste about 45 million GBP of taxpayers money. Foggy dew 19:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I live in Lowestoft too and while i personally like the sunrise scheme i am of the opinion that the money would have been better spent on a third road crossing.

I live in Lowestoft as well,and it is obvious to anyone who does so that the detractors are more numerous than the admirers as proved on various forums,and so are perfectly entitled to present their viewpoint.

Points taken, I live in Lowestoft too, was just trying to keep the article in an encyclopaedic format. Flag removed

My opinions

I moved back to the UK from abroad about three years ago from one of the so-called richest countries in the world. I have a Suffolk background and now, to my suprise, live in the town.

Lowestoft may well suffer from a lack of taste in its regeneration, but actually it suffers more from a lack of self-esteem. The town and its buildings are of good quality. Walk along London Road North and look above the modern shopfronts and see the original buildings behind. Think of the High Street stripped of hairdressers, junk shops, charity shops, and with the properties renovated and you would have an Aldeburgh or Southwold. Lowestoft has a lot of potential, but suffers from a peculiar East Anglian form of self-detraction.

"Lowestoft may well suffer from a lack of taste in its regeneration, but actually it suffers more from a lack of self-esteem." It has a lack of self esteem because its got the A12 cutting though its vitals, and the disused seaward harbour that is presented in an ugly industrial way rather than for recreation. It should be an attractive seaside resort yet the council have been determined to present it as a seedy northern industrial town. " Lowestoft has a lot of potential, but suffers from a peculiar East Anglian form of self-detraction." Its the incompetant planners and council administrators who have been imposing 'destruction' upon us, the locals just have to suffer it and are powerless. Makes me feel depressed. 80.0.107.16 (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The High Street is a tiny part of the town, and comparatively few people pass through it each day. Whereas tens of thousands of people are forced to commute or everyday through the horrible ugliness and seedyness of the area around Asda, recently voted as being the worst eyesore in Suffolk by listeners to BBC Radio Suffolk. It also creates a very bad impression on tourists and visitors to the town. The sad thing is that its only just been built - why wasnt it built with much greater care and attention? The area could have been made to look attractive and prestigeous - executive waterfront town houses for example, and instead its just replaced the old disused industrial buildings with even more ugly new industrial buildings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.1.184.77 (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Our glorious planners have now allowed an ugly industrial yard of heaps of rusting metal to be placed near the bridge, which thousands of townspeople and tourists drive past everyday. Planners! Sit up and pay attention! Industry tucked away out of site good! Industry that everybody has to drive past and in an area near sea and lake that would be better used for recreation very bad! 80.0.117.222 (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The developers were quoted in the local press as saying that there were no objections to the plans for this building at the relevant stage - Like the sunset scheme how many people where aware of just what was plannedFoggy dew 18:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The sunrise scheme comments come across as an opinion and not one that is fact. For example:
1 "In fact the paving changed from an attractive red brick to Coronation Street-style grey cobblestones which are out of character with the area, and a few trees were planted. " - the old red bricks had a number of places where they had been removed for works and replaced with tarmac. They were uneven and slopped at various angles in a number of places. They needed refurbishment or replacement. An opinion on whether grey is better than red is not appropriate.

I agree with the original writer that it is a fact not an opinion that the red brick paving was changed to grey cobblestones, and I also agree that the cobblestones are more unattractive than what was there before. It would have been easy and inexpensive to have replaced or relaid the bricks if and where needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.48.12 (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

The new paving looks worse than the old ones as the light colour shows up all the dirt and filth. I've never seen anyone scrubbing them clean. Lowestoft is so badly planned and managed that I'm beginning to wonder if councillers and officials are devil-worshippers trying to make the town look like Scunthorpe. 80.0.117.222 (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that a lot of people have written in the loacl press saying they do not like the sunset scheme Foggy dew 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

2 "There has been much controversy over the scheme with people branding it as a waste of money that could have been invested into schemes such as the third River Crossing." - Some of the works are in preperation for a possible third crossing with announcements of two possible routes to follow in 2007. An opinion that the money should be spent elsewhere isnt appropriate for works that are ongoing.

"Some of the works are in preperation for a possible third crossing" - that is simply not true, as nobody has decided where any 3rd crossing is going to be yet. "An opinion that the money should be spent elsewhere isnt appropriate for works that are ongoing" - oh yes it is.

3 "and creating several fountains for children to play in, although these have been criticised as resembling a flushing toilet for dogs." - There was one such complaint of this type in the local paper letters section. Following weeks had more letters in support of the fountains with a view that the person "whinging" didnt have children and didnt want features for the benefit of children. During warm weather the facility is always busy with children playing in it. One person's criticsm shouldnt be included.

The position of the fountains has changed the way that the Rememberence day parade worked Foggy dew 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

4 "Lowestoft does have the problem of local government not finding out or asking the wishes of local people, and instead imposing badly thought out, expensive schemes which are if anything detrimental." - opinion of an individual. Although there are some areas which do make you think the comment is correct, proving it is harder

If you limited content to only what had been actually proved in court, this encyclopedia would be very thin.

This statement is true for most of the UK Foggy dew 18:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

5 "The most serious mistake has been the failure to exploit the centrally situated Lake Lothing as an area for recreation and waterside homes, and instead the derelict industrial areas have simply been replaced by misplaced unattractive industrial and commercial buildings which create a bad impression of Lowestoft for people driving past. The council have decided to evict eight firms near ASDA so they can have some fancy new offices,even the MP has protested loudly at this latest arrogant uncaring attitude." - this is all opinion and appears to anti-local Govt. Much of that area is still under development and parts of that area include the route for one of the proposed 3rd river crossing. This "venting" shouldnt be in the article and certainly not on incomplete works.

This is not all opinion. If the planners are lazy or incompetant, then it is not unreasonable to say so. There have been other examples throughout the country of similar mistakes being made. Maybe the overall trouble with Lowestoft is that its being pushed more and more down-market in the hope of getting UK tourists, when instead tourists and residents alike would prefer it to go upmarket like Southwold and Aldeburgh. Also, the Sunrise Scheme is not incomplete but 99% finished.

Wind Turbine

It is the world's largest wind turbine. is unsubstantiated. Google [1] gives several alternatives to this claim which are all bigger.--JBellis 12:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The Lowestoft Journal said it was the world's largest Windturbine.User:slamdac 20.11 5th February 2005 (UTC)

No It didn't, It said it was the 3rd largest in Europe. User:Cooleo 18.51 30/10/2006

It seems many people have strong views on the subject of the wind turbine. Anonymous editors have added their opinions and their opinions on the neutrality of the local press. This is probably not the place to air those views so I editied the article to reflect facts rather than opinion. User:lanesra68

It is only poorly educated people who pronounce Lowestoft Lowstuff!

Information written in the 1st person

I was just doing a disambiguation repair on this page and I noticed that an anonymous editor had added some information to the Geography section that is written in the first person and contains several statements that show POV. I have removed the information from the article and placed it here:

• Lowestoft is one of tyhe most popular seaside resourts in britian. It is like a smaller version of LA with less of gene simmons. I currently attend kirkley high school located in the south side of the town. This is the school the darkness went to and where the channel 4 series "rock school" was filmed. In that series the naritor described lowestoft as one of the most rundown seaside towns in britian. This isnt true. Every town and their good parts and their bad parts and the progeam focused on the bard parts of the town. Lowestoft is actually a beuitful place to go on hoilday and to live in.

Lowestoft also has an annual airshow that attracts in excess of 300 000 people a year. It sees planes like the harrier and the eurofighter typhoon, making this one of the most popular arishows in britan.

Could an editor more familiar with the subject review the information, correct it and return it to the article if necessary? Thanks. Road Wizard 16:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I HAVE REMOVED THIS OPINION DUE TO THE FACT THE PERSON YOU WERE COMMENTING ON DOES SUFFER WITH DYSLEXIA. Very unfair comment.

lots of spelling mistakes, altough I do agree that Rock School was a bit biased

Lowestoft is a popular seaside resort. The music group The Darkness were students at Kirkley High School. There is an annual air show that attracts over 300000 spectators per year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.48.12 (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Channel 4 TV programme

I watched this and although you would expect the normal sequence of events to be:

1) Visit area beforehand and get to know it

2) Write a script story based on 1)

3) Go and shoot film to illustrate the script

What they actually did was:

1) Shoot film nearest, quickest, least effort

2) Concoct a story - any story - that fits these film clips.

A lot of the footage was shot just a few yards or a few feet away from the school - for example in the road outside or in an adjacent alleyway.

The programme wasnt so bad - at least it showed that Lowestoft looks quite nice, has big sandy beaches, and so on.

The article is currently a mess - it should for example be divided up into sections.

Lowestoft Witch Trials in the 17th Century

It would be interesting and rewarding if someone from Lowestoft could add some more information on the Lowestoft Witch Trials in the 17th century; I've come across bits and pieces on them on the web and there have been books written on them. They seem fascinating. Any takers? -- PD 19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This has already been done - see my website at www.lowestoftwitches.com Ivan Bunn Ivanawbunn 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just at your site, it is really good! The background for my interest is a simple one, I searched the internet for my daughter and sons' names one day and found they were online; Amy and John Denny (!). The last witch to be burned in Britain or Ireland was also burned just outside of my home town in County Tipperary, shockingly this took place a few hundred years later. -- (PD 05:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Facts about opinions

It is reasonable to include the facts about commonly held opinions in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.1.184.77 (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Criticism of local government has been removed

Looking again at this article after some months it seems that someone had been through it and censored out all the negative and critical things. Would anyone like to try to justify this? 80.2.222.220 12:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Kirlkley Fen as "Public Open Space"

I was surprised to read in the paper (The Journal 28 March 2008) that the proposed school to the rear of Walmer Road has been scrapped because the land has been used by the public as open space for over twenty years, and by law it can be given town or village green status which prevents any development. The article only said that people walked their dogs on it, and children played on it - exactly what happened at Kirkly Fen before the so-called bypass was built.

Does this mean that Kirkley Fen could have become a town green if someone had applied for this, and thus the building of the new road would have been prevented? I've felt really depressed about this as it could have saved me and thousands of other people the daily psychological torment of loud road noise, and saved the public the wasting of tens of millions of pounds of public money. Please could someone tell me the truth. 80.0.107.16 (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

references in popular culture

i would like to ask if anyone could add anything to the refernces in popular culture i started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The lake district (talk • contribs) 18:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference in Arthur Ransome children's book Peter Duck. The 'Wild Cat' sets out on its ocean voyage from Lowestoft. 142.188.27.142 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

May 2009

I've temporarily reverted the page to it's May 7th position after a bunch of edits that I don't really understand. The first section after the lead is the primary reason for this as it reads as a letter or advert. May be an over-reaction and it could have been fixable, but I need some time to take a look at it - at least this puts us in a situation where we have an article which is usable for a period of time. Can I strongly suggest that we deal with this article on the talk page before getting into what increasingly appears to be a series of circular edits? -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. User 06readc has made repeated such edits and has been flagged for vandalism, and is unresponsive to postings on his/her talk page. Further action needs to be taken against them. The content of this article has hardly changed over the last few weeks edits, it has just been formatting and circular edits mainly adding/deleting unreferences, unnotable, irrelevant or similar text, such as the 'advert' you describe. A fair bit more needs stripping out IMHO, if anyone wants to delete sections or add new content then deffo talkpage it, but I encourage anyone doign formatting and referencing edits to just go ahead because the article really needs it. Good luck getting 06readc to enter discussion though, no lcuk so far. a_boardley (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

06readc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also uploaded images that are copyright violations, which I deleted yesterday. The account may have to be blocked if this behavior continues. Chick Bowen 15:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - and also for putting a comment on the user's talk page directing them here -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Lil Chris

Let's get this clear once and for all. Lil Chris IS notable. This is not a value judgement on him as a person, but having had his own television series, appearing in numerous other television shows, releasing two albums with Top 40 singles, appearingon 'Celebrity' TV shows and being a recognisable name, amongst other things, there is no denying he is notable. So:

• do not delete him from notable people
• do not add inflamatory statements about his status to any mention of him.

Whatever your opinion of him or his reasons for success, they aren't of consequence to a listing of notables. If they are really relevant, they might find a home on a 'Controversy' section on his page, but I doubt it. In any case, they'd need cites. No opinions, NPOV please.

Feel free to enter discussion here. Ignoring this and going ahead with such deletions or adding grafitti to his text on this page will be classed as vandalism. I'm open to discussion if anyone else is.

a_boardley (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Why was Dan Hawkins deleted from notable people?

My i ask why someone has deleted Dan Hawkins from the notable people section? If his brother Justin is listed do should he. lake district —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.57.82 (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Replaced. a_boardley (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The yeah You's Lowestoft connection

On the local radio station one of the band members mentioned that they used to live in Lowestoft and often performed gigs in the town, i did not know if this should be added to notable people? lake district

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yeah_You%27s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.182.115 (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can find an online reference for this then go for it :) a_boardley (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

here is the information/link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/4dff677a-3de4-44f0-b30c-c714b6da1d14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.182.115 (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, that link is actually just a text-grab from Wikipedia, itself unreferenced. Bit of a circular argument. I'm happy to let it stay unless anyone objects, in the meantime keep an eye out for better references. Else just add the radio show as a citation? a_boardley (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this a better source? lake district http://www.thebeach.co.uk/on-air/info.php?refnum=850 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.182.115 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, but all it says is 'Lowestoft roots', I wouldn't want to see further inof than that without evidence but 'The Yeah Yous - band with Lowestoft roots (cite)' would be fine. a_boardley (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain what a citation is and how i go about doing it. lake district —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.196.19 (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Lowestoft Energy Capital of the UK

How come a sentence has not been produced saying that Lowestoft is the capital in renewable energy?

http://www.ness-point.co.uk/Lowestoft-Renewable-Energy/Lowestoft-Renewable-Energy-Capital-UK/

NORFOLK

Lowestoft is not in Norfolk and therefore no content on the Lowestoft page should state that it is, Lowestoft is in Suffolk.

Include poor assessments of the council and planning department for balanced view

The bad assessments of the council and planning department by government auditors should be included - its not supposed to be just a publicity brochure for the place, but a balanced view. Ignoring bad things is going to keep things bad. Other things to include would be mention of the very bad traffic problems the town has, and the various eyesores. Desperately needs a by-pass I think. For a little town its got a hell of a lot of traffic. 78.149.201.215 (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

probably the most easterly town

The article says: Lowestoft is probably the most easterly town in the United Kingdom. What a strange remark for an encyclopedia. I've never been in Lowestoft, but after checking a map I removed the word probably. It is the most easterly town in the UK. Jaho (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal: Sparrow's Nest

I'm proposing that we merge any notable content which can be found at the Sparrow's Nest page into the Lowestoft page. I'm sure the limited content on the page can easily be integrated into the Lowestoft page and help to make the article on Lowestoft a bit better at the same time. Any thoughts or opinions? Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge completed as part of rewrite. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, I missed that merge. What a shame. HMS Europa/Sparrow's Nest had a deeply unique historic role in the second world war, and the article needed expanding, not deleting. Very sad it has been wiped out just like that. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - not intentionally done to lose stuff on Europa at all - and I've tried to put that stuff back in this article (I hope!). The issue with the article was probably more to do with it's focus on the park and so on rather than Europa - the Europa section really hadn't had anything added to it since 2005. I wouldn't have a problem with working on an article if you wanted to - I've come across some references already - some of them are in this article. Might make some sense to create it as Editing HMS Europa (shore establishment) though? Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Lowestoft Seafront Air Festival

I have added a incedent from 2010 about three people that were struck by lightening this has lots of referances so should not be removed from artical!!!

"Places of interest" put togerther with; "shopping and services" renamed as Locally Famed Locations

I am looking on improveing lowestoftb artical by putting two topics together. Places of interest put togerther with shopping and services. This will save space on artical and two subjects can be covered at same time. When two subjects are put together it can be renamed; "locally famed locations" i should not see to much of a problem in doing this.

Don't do so. Changed my mind. Needs some work though to tie everything together. See WP:UKCITIES. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

new section lowestoft carnival

The lowestoft carnival is the second biggest event in lowestoft and should be inclueded in this artical.

Perhaps, although as a short paragraph within an events section (or possibly an arts section) would be a better place for it. The air show at least as some form of national notability, whereas much smaller places have carnivals. See WP:UKCITIES for guidance.

I've rvt your adds of last night because they don't tend to meet WP:UKCITIES and have WP:STYLE issues. I have, though, taken on board some of the suggestions in the transport section, although avoiding repetition and over wikilinking. I'm trying to model articles with GA status - such as Chard, Somerset - or examples from WP:UKCITIES in order to work on sections and get them into a more encyclopedic format. This isn't going to happen overnight though - I don't have time for that - and I'm not suggesting that there's even the remotest hope of getting this article to GA status. My next aim would be the Geography section, although I might not get started today and then that'll go quiet for a while anyway. That could use some work on soils and geology if you can find some references. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with getting Lowestoft artical to GA status is Lowestoft is a TOWN not a MAJOUR CITY!!! As regards to the CARNIVAL according to what your saying there should be a little mention of it under section; CONNECTIONS TWO ARTS!!!. As for transport i think it should be mentioned that OULTON BROAD HAS TWO LEVEL CROSSINGS WHICH ALSO CAUSE TRAFFIC PROBLAMS OF QUES AND GRIDLOCK!!!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkcover21 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

a) Incorrect. Wormshill was FA, let alone GA, and is a village about the size of Barnby.

b) Yes, give me a chance. I'll not be editing for a few days - or barely anyway. It'll get it's mention given the recent controversy - perhaps in a section related to the tourism industry do you think?

c) Irrelevant here. Possibly relevant, if you can cite it, in the Oulton Broad acticle.

d) Bots have asked you to sign on your talk page several times now.

Try and avoid SHOUTING if you can. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Over all statis of Lowestoft Artical

Lowestoft Artical lacks allot of referances so some of it will need to be written again to conclude with cititations. Some of this artical is all over the place. Some things have been repeated three times in different sections. Some of artical sections can be overlapped and merged together this makes artical smaller thus allowing more room for new information to be added to artical. (Darkcover21 (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

I should hope some of this ort to be done to make articals notability and statis greater than it is now!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Darkcover21 (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

That's the intention - it's just hard to do given that over the last two years or so the article has been the focus of repeated attacks and unhelpful editing. Use WP:UKCITIES as the guide to sections and don't forget that WP:LEAD (and WP:MOSINTRO in particular) is clear that there should be repetition from the lead in later sections.

It's unfortunate that the article needs some work still. I don't have time to rewrite everything myself however. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Seaside Resort

At top of Lowestoft artical it sais; "IS A TOWN IN SUFFOLK, ENGLAND" however; i think this should be added that Lowestoft is a Seaside Resort Town thus saying; "IS A SEASIDE RESORT TOWN IN SUFFOLK, ENGLAND" and a new catergory should be added; "CATERGORY; SEASIDE RESORTS IN ENGLAND". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkcover21 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a town first and foremost. Yes, we need to address the tourist industry and it's importance somewhere I agree. And that will probably get mentioned in the lead eventually. But it's a town first. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Artical Clean Up

Why does this artical need a clean up? ive only just put the stuff on here and with great detail added and your already moaning about it! What better quality could you ask for? Also you can not moan about style as i have added italics to key words in paragragh! What more could be done than that?(Darkcover21 (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

Much of it's non-notable, much of it is way over wikilinked and much of it fails the basic tests associated with things like spelling and the use of standard English that are required by WP:STYLE. Read the Manual of Style carefully. Really carefully. It's a crucial thing to read so that you understand why the things you're doing are not as good as the could be. Where you're referencing you're not always following the reference style preferred by WP:CITE and sometimes the references you're providing simply don't mention the subject that's actually being referenced.

You point about having "added italics to key words in paragragh!" illustrates that you haven't read and understood the manual of style for example. The MOS specifically says "Italics may be used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences (whereas boldface is normally not used for this purpose). Generally, the more highlighting in an article, the less its effectiveness." (see WP:STYLE#Italics).

I've explained some of this before. I've asked you to read WP:STYLE before and to think about what you're doing. Fwiw I don't intend to edit the Lowestoft article. It's yours to sort out. I'll show you the sorts of things I'd like to see on other pages you're editing, but not this one. I don't have time to sort this embarrassment to Wikipedia out. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

How it is a embarisment to Wikipedia? WP:STYLE is just a pain when editing articals! Allot of the stuff is notable localy to Lowestoft and its people! But maybe not as notable on national and international scales and people! I admit some of sections could be improved more! However; this should not involve deleting it all or re-verting the edits! Instead working on improveing what has been added! Some of your edits have been good! Like when you improved writeing and added a chart on Geography section!(Darkcover21 (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

It's an embarrassment, in my opinion, because it contains far too much non-notable and poorly written stuff. Take a look at the edit history - there's just too much silliness gone on in this article over the years. I don't have time to put in the work necessary for this article just now - good luck with it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion btw. A section on Economy - using WP:UKCITIES might be helpful and a way to get around some of the cleanup problems which have been identified. It might have *short* paragraphs about:

• the fishing industry - in terms of it's present nature
• the harbour/port and the associated engineering
• retailing - a short paragraph only is needed I think. It doesn't have to list every retail park - that just looks like spam
• tourism - which would allow much of the material which is way over the top to be bought in. This might be two paragraphs given the importance of tourism to Lowestoft and could incorporate the Sunshine Coast stuff. Maybe even three paragraphs - just about

What do you think? Might that help to rationalise some of the issues with the article? There's an argument that tourism *might* have it's own section - we'd have to look and see what it would look like.

I don't know whether you'd like to have a go at roughing a section out - perhaps in a sandbox? I think I can lay my hands on some economic statistics which could go in there as well. If you can write it - and avoid too much (please!!!) then I can copy edit it and get it more in line with WP:STYLE.

How's about that as a more co-operative way forward on this? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok so a section on Economy - using WP:UKCITIES this could be possible allow economy mostley is about money, fianaces, political views, taxes, industry and buisness. the fishing industry - in terms of it's present nature is not even worth bothering with as it is very small. the harbour/port and the associated industrys this is not needed as it is covered and could be included in port of lowestoft artical. retailing, tourism and places of interest are three big areas that would need covering in this section or as a section in its own right. Sports and leasure section along with governace are another two majour tpoics that could be incleded.

So i could merge all thease sections together along with adding some extra statitics under section economy in a re-wrote and improved format. I thought this would seem cooperative!. Allow i think all images should stay and be included in artical.(Darkcover21 (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

The specific guidelines suggest that economy sections might have stuff like:

• A note on major employment sectors.
• A note on major employers.
• A note on traditional or former sectors.
• A note on regeneration/gentrification projects are encouraged here.

I don't think, given those guidelines, you can miss out some mention of the fish docks within the article. The port stuff needs to be there as well - it can include a note that there's more detail in the other article. This would be an advantage as it would allow a brief summary to be made in the main Lowestoft article. Retail and tourism - yes. Place of interest - well, isn't that mainly tourism? Or, within WP:UKCITIES it would fall under Culture and Community (the theatres for example) or Landmarks (the war memorial in Sparrow's Nest for example). The tourist attractions probably stay in the Economy section, the other stuff probably goes elsewhere. In the interim I'd maybe suggest keeping a Places of Interest section to include that sort of stuff and then reworking it into a Culture and Community section.

Not sure about all the images - some of them certainly. There may be ways to include all of them - it depends what the text blocks look like when the images are in place.

Sport and leisure and Governance are separate sections under WP:UKCITIES so should probably stay as separate areas.

Make sense? Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok so createing a economey section to include major employment sectors, traditional or former sectors and regeneration/gentrification. My exsample being Waveney Sunrise Scheame and 1st East Regeneration both no longer exsist but projects by them have been completed. fish docks can be mention allong with harbour but remember there are more things in it than just fish docks. For me Retail and Tourism are two of most important things. Place of interest is to show important and well known locations in town that people would go to see it is not supposed to just be tourism as it is for local people two i.e the community so it is good to change name of section places of interest to cultutre and community. Hopefully keeping all images to fit into sections. Governmance is not realey important and is small section it could be got rid of. Sport and leasure is not as seperate as you think as it can come under tourism, culture and community. (Darkcover21 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

Can you go and read WP:UKCITIES again - Governance is a major section. Sport and leisure is also a clearly expected section. The fact that they're small sections is a good thing - they break the article up into small sections which are easily readable. That's the aim. I know the governance one could use expanding, but someone else will come along and do that at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

ok so Governance, Sport and leisure sections stay seperate as for createing a economey section to include major employment sectors, traditional or former sectors and regeneration/gentrification. My exsample being Waveney Sunrise Scheame and 1st East Regeneration both no longer exsist but projects by them have been completed.

fish docks can be mention allong with harbour but remember there are more things in it than just fish docks. For me Retail and Tourism are two of most important things.

Place of interest is to show important and well known locations in town that people would go to see it is not supposed to just be tourism as it is for local people two i.e the community so it is good to change name of section places of interest to cultutre and community. Hopefully keeping all images to fit into sections.(Darkcover21 (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

Proposed merger of Sunshine Coast

Not proposed by me, but to start the discussion, I agree entirely. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Port of Lowestoft

Not proposed by me either (you're really supposed to start a discussion when you propose the merger btw!). I tend to disagree - too much content here anyway and the Port is reasonably notable in itself - I think it would survive an AfD easily for example. My opinion is that it would lead to the main Lowestoft article, which is already rather too long imo, becoming increasingly bloated. A more suitable merge, imo, would be to merge the Port of Lowestoft with Lake Lothing as there's already some duplication there, although that wouldn't necessarily reflect the outer harbour.

Pros and cons of this. I'd suggest seeking a wider range of opinions about what to do with it, although I would tend to think that merging with Lowestoft would be the least helpful option unless a major prune is going to be undertaken - see, for examples, Kings Lynn or Fleetwood, both of which are also ABP ports. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok so no need to merge it with Lowestoft artical however; could merge it with Lake Lothing. I wanted to say allow it is called ABP Port of Lowestoft this is just a name and it is infact a harbour. So whilst it is a harbour can cater for most sea vessels. But it cannot handel massive oil tankers and container ships or other massive vessels that you would expect to find in a port. Harbours are generally smaller than Ports. I think this should be added to artical along with more information on idustrys and services at Lowestoft Harbour.(Darkcover21 (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

We should take that sort of discussion to the article talk page. I'd suggest leaving the merge proposal in place for a week or so and see if anyone else has any interest in it first. Then close that and we discuss the sorts of things we could put in the article without overcrowding it with lists and avoiding the potential of it being seen as spam (an issue which has effected articles associated with Lowestoft in the past fwiw). Certainly Brooke Marine, for example, needs to be mentioned. And I tried to find some sources for the measurements and failed dismally - which is one reason I rvted some of that stuff. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Culture and Community

New section added culture and community this was added to improve other artical sections as part of a clean up and was disscused with user:Blue Square Thing this section should not be removed. (Darkcover21 (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC))

It makes naff all difference if it's been "discussed" with me or not. It can still be reverted or changed by anyone. Only when some sort of consensus is reached could you begin to argue that way. I certainly don't believe there's any consensus on the content of these sections yet --Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Where as there may not be a consensus this is why i mentioned notibilaty of Lowestoft artical. Along with lack of sources. As already said it does not mean what is wrote in artical is not true allow there not many referances. (Darkcover21 (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC))

Notability

The topic of this article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding, sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. This artical is not of majour importance or notability and lacks some sources. It would be good if some more sources could be added to back the claims. Allow i will say that the claims are true evenknow they are not sourced allot. (Darkcover21 (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC))

Now then, let's see. The article has:

• 45 references - which is plenty
• the majority of which are at least reasonably reliable
• and are secondary sources - enough of which are at regional or higher level
• which are independent in the main
• and verifiable
• and the subject isn't temporary

Which pretty much covers the general notability guidelines, WP:NRVE and WP:NTEMP.

Also, by convention, anywhere with a reasonable population won't have a chance at AfD. Trust me on this - try it if you want, but the AfD would be over quicker than a quick thing - see WP:NPLACE --Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Notable People

I have ofen been told bye User;Charles not to list things in wiki. However; notable people section is in list format. Allow; for this particuler section it is difficult to put it in any other format other than lists. Otherwise; in paragraphs it looks all jumbled up information. Where as a list seperates people and there definition clearly.(Darkcover21 (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC))

I think that depends how you write it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Notable People - The Darkness and Reece Ritchie

Looking through the notable people section, I'm thinking that The Darkness should be listed as the actual band members? as the section is actually notable 'people'. Does anyone agree? Also not all members of the band are from Lowestoft. I think the members were listed as individuals before but were merged together a while ago?

I also think Reece Ritchie should be added to the notable people section, as his popularity is rising very quickly, but I think I have seen a discussion about him somewhere before on here? I didn't want to get it added if someone disagrees with his notability?

Ryublue (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally the minimum requirement for a listing in a notable people from X section is that they have their own article, or significant coverage on a larger article (e.g. if they're part of a band). Equally generally the larger the settlement the greater the notability and greater the connection with the place they need to have, ideally also it should be the principle place they are associated with (or one of a couple of places they have about equal affiliation to). Reece Ritchie does have an article, and that article states he was educated in Lowestoft, so he does have the minimum, but the notable people section is quite long and could do with going through (see below) so I'd hold off adding anyone for the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Which notable people should we include?

The current list of notable people is very long and seems to include people with some quite tennuous links to the town. I've never been to Lowestoft, and have not heard of most of these people, so I have no idea about them other than the list annotations and their articles. Here are my comments on the current crop - these are all my opinion and I'm probably wrong about at least some of them!

• Samuel Morton Peto - Lowestoft station is one of many he built, he lived locally for a time and has a road in the town named after him - there may (or may not) be others in other towns though.
• Bob Blizzard - not every MP representing the town deserves a mention here. Did he do anything particularly notable for this seat he represented for 3 parliaments (not a huge length of time compared to some).
• Peter Aldous - not imho a notable MP (maybe so in the future). Was he particularly notable for the area as a district or county councillor?
• David Anear - doesn't seem to have any connection with Lowestoft other than his birthplace, his affiliation seems to be entirely Australian
• Benjamin Britten - very notable person, born here and maintained connections with Suffolk. I'd be inclined to leave him in the list.
• Thomas Crisp - very strong associations with Lowestoft, so clear keep in the list imho
• John Ashby (admiral) - moderate keep. Seems to have greater association with the town than many
• Michael Foreman (author / illustrator) - Probably include here (born and grew up in a suburb, educated in the town), although he should definitely be on the Pakefield list (which he is). I'd make a note of his educational connection to the town in his annotation as well as his nearby birth.
• Christopher Cockerell - clearly notable person, but does he actually have any connection to the town other than his birth? Deserves a mention on the Oulton Broad page for sure though.
• George Borrow - actually married into an estate in Oulton Broad and lived for a significant time and later died there (far more than just "wrote some books while living there") but I'm not convinced this merits an entry on this list. Another one for the Oulton Broad list though.
• Robert Potter (translator) - long time vicar of Lowestoft and buried in the churchyard, no question he should be on this list (imho)
• Bill Crooks - he was born in Lowestoft, and his father was locally notable, but I'm struggling to see his significant connection with anywhere outside New Zealand. Not one I think should be on this list.
• Karl Theobald - born and educated in the town, but little direct connection since afaict from the article. Moderate keep for me
• Zebedee Soanes - The poor article doesn't make it clear but his BBC profile seems to make it clear that he continues to have associations with Lowestoft, so another moderate keep
• Ivan Bunn - Strongly associated with Suffolk, less so with Lowestoft in particular but he was born there and doesn't appear to have stronger associations with any other place, so a weakish keep
• Lil Chris - a definite for the Kirkley list, but I'm unconvinced of his association with Lowestoft in general, particularly when compared to some of the others. Not sure.
• Tim Westwood - born in Lowestoft, but his article makes no reference to any other connection. Not sure he should be on the list
• Terry Butcher - educated in Lowestoft, but more strongly associated with Ipswich. Possible keep.
• The Darkness (band) - per the above section, I think we should treat the band members individually.
  • Justin Hawkins and Dan Hawkins (musician) - partly educated in the town. Belong on the Kirkley list for sure, but Lowestoft article, I'm unsure as they were both born in Surrey and both left the area pretty much as soon as they could.
  • Ed Graham - slightly longer connection with the area, but was born in Great Yarmouth, another one for Kirkley but not necessarily Lowestoft
  • Frankie Poullain - No connection with the area at all
• Laurie Sivell - born in Lowestoft but more closely associated with Ipswich. Possible keep, but I'm not convinced.
• Anthony Ogogo - born in Lowestoft, but his article contradicts this one about whether he still lives in the town. If he lives there still, I'd say keep, otherwise I'm not sure
• George Vempley Burwood - keep if he's notable enough for an article, otherwise delete. There is a deleted article at that title, but it was a very poor mishmash of genealogy and local history that was a clear A7 speedy deletion.
• Thomas Nashe - born in the town and but little is known about his early years. Probable keep I think, given the era
• Charles Dickens - delete the most tenuous connection of the lot! The connection with Blundeston is mentioned on that page and doesn't need repeating here.
• Joseph Conrad - delete. Doesn't seem to have lived in Lowestoft for longer than the time it took to find another ship to sail on.
• Edward FitzGerald (poet) - "spent his summers knocking about somewhere near Lowestoft" (meaning somewhere offshore near Lowestoft). Not a strong connection at all, remove
• W.G. Sebald - another one that should be removed. He merely wrote about the town in a book that was a walking tour of East Anglia. No other apparent connection.
• Derek Acorah - he filmed in the town, but only one episode of a series that invovled travelling all over Britain - a contender for the weakest connection of all.

Remember, I could be wrong! Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea to do this. I agree that as a list it's certainly too long. I'd also like to see it reworked into a paragraph format - I think this is more or less doable (I'll give an example in a bit...). Here's my 2 euros worth:

Britten is clearly hugely notable as, imo, are Nashe and Potter. Ashby and Crisp are clear keeps for me, and I'd add James Richard Dacres (1788–1853). Peto I can live with a mention of, although I'm not sure if there's any merit in the link with Dickens or not. There's also a case, perhaps, for George Davison (photographer) and Foreman probably needs to be in here. Soanes and Thebold I'm very happy to keep and probably Westwood as well - in passing at least (this is where a paragraph method will worb netter I think - a paragraph for "pop culture" stuff would allow the odd passing reference with more in depth stuff on, say, the Hawkins brothers - and I think we can certainly include them as above).

In terms of sports - Butcher - maybe. Daryl Sutch and Paul Haycock were both born in the town, as was Les Rohr who pitched for the Mets. And Peter Wright lives there I think doesn't he (darts player)? Again, a paragraph approach might allow us to do something like:

Sportspeople associated with Lowestoft include archer David Anear who was born in the town and former England football captain Terry Butcher who was educated in Lowestoft. Others born in the town include former Ipswich Town goalkeeper Laurie Sivell, Norwich City defenders Paul Haylock and Daryl Sutch, New York Mets pitcher Les Rohr and middleweight boxer Anthony Ogogo. Professional darts player Peter Wright lives in the town.

I could live with removing the archer from that list btw. Does that sort of approach make sense though?

The MPs can be covered in the Government section - along with David Porter, who I think still teaches at Kirkley, and Jim Prior at least. That takes us back in terms of MPs to the 50s I think. They don't need to be in the notable people section at all imo. I'd also get rid of Bunn and Burwood - Bunn really seems dubious in terms of general notability imo.

One of the issues is, of course, the division of Lowestoft into all the articles we have on the darned place! Brief mentions here and then more detail in the suburbs where relevant seems a good enough idea.

It's grand to see some discussion on this sort of thing btw. The Culture and community section might be able to hold a couple of these as well and could use a bit of focus. The tourism bit of the economy is just spam as well imo - which leads me to ask how important a separate section on the airshow is? I wonder, in fact, if it might qualify for it's own article, especially if there are 101 different little incidents to develop in it (not that I feel I could write a separate article on it btw - I really don't have the knowledge! Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Image copyvios

Unfortunately a number of the images in use on this page just now are copyvios - the red arrows, Kirkley shopping centres, Historic High Street, Britten Centre and Claremont Pier certainly are - I've indicated where on my user page and have tagged them as speedies over at the Commons - so the chances are they'd disappear. These are all the responsibility of Darkcover21 oddly enough. I think the RN patrol one probably definitely is a copyvio as well - and given that the others are I'd be concerned about the South Pier one as well.

Sorry about that - I'd delete them myself usually, although it's not a bad thing to have pointed it out here. There are loads of good ones on geograph we can replace these with eventually fwiw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Images have now been removed by a bot. Anyone with any suggestions as to a new infobox image? The old one (which I wasn't aware was a copyvio, although given the source it seems obvious now) of the town hall always struck me as a strange and dull choice. What sums up Lowestoft and will work in the infobox? Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Some rewrite proposals

Given the issues that this article has had recently (and not so recently tbf) I've been working on a rewrite in my sandbox - you can take a look here: User:Blue Square Thing/draft Lowestoft article. Whilst I'm very aware of WP:OWN issues, it's been suggested tome by a couple of people who have seen it that it might be useful to make a more or less wholesale replacement of the current article with it and then use it as a base for moving forward. I'd like to gather more opinion on that! I don't make any assumption that the sandbox version is "finished". It's not, and it desperately needs other people to write some content as my written style is a bit rubbish sometimes. But it might make a better base than the current article. The specific things I'm looking at include:

• removing some of the more recent history and using that as the base for a traditional industries section of the economy section
• moving the Lowestoft Porcellain bit back where it was after history - it has quite a few links into it and it does seem to have been quite important. This might fit as a subsection within economy though
• rewriting the economy stuff totally - mainly to get rid of the spam it currently includes. The renewable energy stuff will go in there too
• putting the airshow in with tourism - but this may need it's own section (see my comments above)
• focusing the culture and community section on local stuff rather tan tourism stuff and adding a short (at the minute) landmarks section
• notable people converted to prose, although this needs cutting as per discussions above

There's still lots to do - some more on the offshore industry perhaps, and along with that more reference to links with Yarmouth probably. The Lead needs lots of work - I'm rubbish with leads - demography needs working on (I have some numbers but it'll take some time to develop them) and I'm not that interested in government stuff or religion. Images will be needed eventually as well. I'd really appreciate opinions on whether or not wholesale replacement is a good idea. Given the history of this article I can't stress enough that I'm not trying to own it and that a range of opinions is crucial. In related stuff, I've prodded articles on Lowestoft Dockland Railway and Lowestoft local elections and may well do so to Lowestoft Mayor - or merge it anyway. I also feel it might be useful to archive this page - perhaps sticking everything pre-2011 in an archive? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the rewrite is a real improvement on the existing article. I would propose its adoption as a base to work on now, whilst archiving the existing page. U+003F^? 11:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with a replacement and soon as possible. I do not know if there is a relevant policy but if it is left too long, there is a danger that someone will start adding useful information to the current article, making it harder to replace. nb Have you monitored for new content since your rewrite? I was considering expanding the government section but held off because there are two versions lurking! Putney Bridge (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone want to oppose this? I'll look to copy stuff across at some point in the next 24 hours otherwise. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I oppose why should just you get to rewrite entire article. You should let other users contribute to article. Before you replace article with your version it should be looked at and approved by administrator. Otherwise your edits do not seem constructive and may be seen as spam or vandalism. (92.29.114.84 (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC))

All fair points, which is why I've canvassed for opinion here and in two other places as well. To clear up one specific point, it's not *my* version I'm looking to place here, it's a starting point for an improved version - and very much only a starting point. As I've indicated above I'm very concious that there are sections which I've only very roughly developed or not developed at all. Do you have an objection to using a rewrite as a starting point or is there some preference for the current version over a rewrite? Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy for it to be included asap. After all of the vandalism over the last month from Dark21 I think something needs to be done and a re-write base is good. It's not Blue rewriting the whole article alone as suggested by 92.29.114.84, but giving us all a base to improve on. Someone needs to and I'm happy for Blue to take the lead. Ryublue (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I would assume that Blue Square has used the live article as the base for his version in which case there is no real difference between editing in the Main space and User space. We just need to be careful that we do not lose any recent edits to the Main article. Putney Bridge (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I did. I *think* I've picked the good edits from the most recent stuff. I also went back - way back at times - to old edits and found some really quite useful stuff there that seemed to have been gotten rid of when some of the gamers were playing with this article. Inevitably I'll have missed something of course and I'm sure that there are places I'll have trimmed too hard, but it's only a start. I will go back through and take a look again at a few things though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There obviously needs to be new starting point for this artical but rewriting it entirely is not a wise thing to do. I would work at artical section by section until all of it has been looked at and main features included with a bit of detail not just brief statements of five words. Otherwise anybody who doesnot know about Lowestoft and looks at this artical will not understand it. If any new information comes along that can be added later as doing this is only starter. But remember not all sections need doing some are ok. (2.101.11.234 (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC))

Fwiw, 2.101.11.234 has been identified as a sockpuppet of Darkcover21 - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darkcover21 Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, done it before we end up with this getting protected again :-) I've no doubt that we'll have lots of information about Kirkley shopping centre or the attractions of the South Pier added before tomorrow, but never mind - let's see if we can get this improved again now and then take it to peer review for more ideas. Notable people probably still too long fwiw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What are peoples problems?

Why is it when i try and contribute to this artical or ones related to it. People try and stop me from editing. Especially when the other people do not give a toss or dam and no care what so ever for Lowestoft or other articals about things in it. (92.28.247.119 (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC))

Most other people contribute to Lowestoft and related articals. So people should not keep reporting things as spam or vandalism. As it is not spam or vandalism all it is contributing to articals. I am more than happy to talk about changes but it always seems others do not take any notice of talks about suggest changes. (92.28.247.119 (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC))

Other nasty people on here are just trying to spite me. You all should not try and stop me from editing or contributing to Lowestoft and related articals. As i have as much right as you to do so.(92.28.247.119 (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC))

Request for Partial Protection made

I made a request for partial protection on this page earlier today (at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Lowestoft). I count 6 IP addresses, all probably sockpuppets of Darkcover (and reported as such), editing today, including an uncompleted AfD (again) and a Speedy note (again). Ho hum. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

London Surfer Dies Off Coast at Lowestoft, Suffolk

A surfer from London has died after getting into difficulty off coast at Lowestoft, Suffolk. I was thinking whether there could be a little mention of this on Lowestoft artical. As surfing is popular sport off Lowestoft coast and this iccident of surfer dieng was notable and rare. There are allot of references for this incident.

• Daily Mail
• BBC News
• East Anglian Daily Times
• Eastern Daily Press
• Oxford Mail
• Sailsbury Journal
• Express and Star

92.29.112.24 (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure yet - a bit one event perhaps. I imagine it should be possible to build it into the section where lifeguards etc... are mentioned? Anyone want to have a go (ip - place it here if you need to for now and it can be worked in by someone else). Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Retailing

Note guidance at WP:UKCITIES which says:

A note on notable shopping centres (of regional or national notability). (my emphasis)

The Britten Centre, London Road North, Kirkley shops, the Triangle Market place or even the Historic High Street are not notable in a regional or national context. Nor, for that matter, is your best mates uncle's paper shop or the oh so helpful carpet store down the road that did your nanas front room on the cheap. The very brief mentions we already have here are probably way too much anyway. The article doesn't need non-notable trivia like that getting in the way. It's been added time and again - let's actually work on the areas the article needs work to move it beyond B status. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've requested the protection be restored. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 01:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Population

Does anyone know the best place to find population data? I noticed the population used to be 72,339 but was changed recently to 64,358. I've looked in the 2001 census and the population was 57,746 ten years ago. Does anyone have the true value? Or should we wait until the 2011 data is available? Ryublue (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The figure includes Carlton Colville, which seems to be the way Suffolk CC does it (the source might want to be changed to this actually?). I think it probably makes some sense to include CC as in just about every practical sense it's part of Lowestoft I think. The 2008 estimate figures probably do indicate something closer to 72,000 I imagine. I *think* some editors prefer the official census data, particularly for bigger settlement articles like this. I'm not averse to using a 2008 estimate - perhaps in addition in the demography section? But you may be right about leaving it till the 2011 figures come out. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see thanks! I Didn't realise that CC wasn't included in data! I'd definitely include CC as part of Lowestoft. Official data is definitely best I think, but yes I think it'd be sensible to wait until the new numbers are available! Thanks for clearing up! Ryublue (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Census in 2011 said the population was 70,945 and the Waveney District council said the population of the town (including Oulton and Great Yarmouth) is 71,010. I live in Lowestoft and Oulton and Carlton Colville are part of Lowestoft so the figure of 58,000 is incorrect. Link to Census website. http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/query/asv2htm.aspx

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.162.77 (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 

Pakefield Lighthouse added as Landmark

Ive added Pakefield Lighthouse as a Landmark it has a referance.

Pakefield Lighthouse, located at Pontin's Holiday Park on cliff tops in Pakefield at Lowestoft, it was built and opened in 1831 but light was first lit in 1832. It stands 34 feet above sea level and emits a red light which has a range of 9 miles. But it was extinguished in 1864. In 2000 it was converted for use as a coastwatch station as apart of sea safety group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.251.234 (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Dealt with in the Pakefield article. I don't think it's needed here on balance. There are more important things to deal with here - iirc Pakefield lighthouse doesn't get a mention in any of the tourist related sources - Lowestoft does. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Georgaphy, November 2007 Tidal Surge Added

In Georgaphy ive added November 2007 Tidal Surge with Referances.

In November 2007 there was a North Sea tidal surge which was combination of high tides and gale force winds it was considered worst flooding in 50 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.18.89 (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't actually happen though. Predicted event which didn't cause any flooding in the town at all as far as I can tell - a little at Aldeburgh iirc, but not much even there. NN Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Geography, 2002 Flood Added

Ive added 2002 flood to geography section with referance.

Torrential Rain caused a flood in town in October 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.245.7 (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Source makes no reference to Lowestoft. It might have flooded, but that source doesn't make it clear that it did. We're a bit flooded out anyway - could prolly use little more if any. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

St Peters Tower Block added to Landmarks

Ive added St Peters Tower Block to Landmarks with a referance.

St Peters Tower Block, located at Chapel Street and Factory Street it is made up of flats and Lowestoft's skyline is dominated by it. In 2003 it was modernised and £2m was spent on repairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.24.31 (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Plasmor LTD Grain Silo added to Landmarks

Ive added Plasmor LTD Grain Silo to Landmarks with a referance.

Plasmor LTD Grain Silo, located at Inner Harbour on Commercial Road it is used for shipping grain to and from other countries. It also dominates Lowestoft's skyline and was refurbished by Folcrete Restoration Services LTD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.24.31 (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

New photograph for the main image

Does anyone agree, and if so, does anyone have, a better image for the top right of the page? To me, the image of the old beach shelters (which are no longer there) really don't say 'Lowestoft'. Shouldn't this photo be an image of the town, or a main landmark? Ryublue (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree - the problem is sourcing an image! The commons - which I've added as a cat to the bottom of the page btw - doesn't really throw up very much (and some of it is very dubious in terms of sourcing - most of our socks seem to be represented there...). Geograph is disappointing as well, but a Flickr search throws up some which are under an appropriate license and which may be useful. I quite like this one, which seems to summarise the town in many ways. I may get around to adding that later - perhaps straightening it first...

There are probably others as well - it's been part of my "to do" list to sort out images on this article for a while. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for updating that image, I definitely prefer that one, hopefully others do too?. It shows industry as well which is good! Plenty good enough for now! Ryublue (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

General point

First; I have lived in Lowestoft for twenty years. I read this "talk" and the article and see the typical Wikipedia discussions: strange edits praising a town to high-heaven (or doing it down), a total misunderstanding of what academic writing should be (anything negative even if supported is seen as personal own view), obsession with "pet hates" and local political legends (most of which are not specific to the town or so specific to a certain mind-set or pressure group). Also there is a belief here that the word "article" is spelt "artical" and that the possessive "its" is written "it's" If someone is afflicted by dyslexia, that requires our understanding, but when those who simply are sloppy in their writing are "demanding" clean-ups and so on, we know that Wikipedia is going sadly downmarket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.124.17 (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for History - Changes in town over latter half of 20th Century & Port Construction/Development in 19th Century

I like to make a suggestion for improving the article in regards to the town's history. Could we include information on the town's development and changes during the latter half of the 20th century, after WWII? There's quite some notable events that occurred here, that could be detailed - the closure of the town's swing bridge; the effect of the flood of 1953; the loss of prominent landmarks in the town, such as Tuttle's Department Store (but not building), and St. John's Church; the decline of the fishing industry; and so forth. I think it would be nice if we could do this. And maybe possibly, more research could be done about the developments of the town in the 19th century; I know we mention Sir Peto and his railway, but perhaps mention of the Port of Lowestoft's construction should be included, the impact of tourism, and such like might be something else to consider? GUtt01 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Considerable updating throughout is desirable

This is now March 2019, and I have edited the Lowestoft entry to reflect the most recent (2015) and final WDC elections, along with the forthcoming 2019 changes to the District Council following amalgamation with Suffolk Coastal.

In doing so, I notice that there are sections which lack the most recent information e.g. 2011 Census data, and a number of other things.

If others are agreeable, I will make a start on what I think may be needed.

Roaringboy 11:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaringboy (talk • contribs)

Life of Lowestoft film

A seven-word mention when it's shown later in the year will more than suffice. Bmcln1 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"London Road North" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect London Road North. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 26#London Road North until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Unparished area

@Stortford and Mertbiol: In terms of discussing the unparished area what is the correct wording to use here and also for Hardwick, Suffolk that I have recently created? From this it seems that we now don't want to mention the term "unparished area" at all. I've used this kind of wording when a successor parish was established by saying that the district and its parish were abolished and that a successor parish was established covering the same area as the former district and its parish. With Lowestoft its probably not difficult to say its an unparished area but as we have noted we need to be careful about this as some like the parts of the former Rickmansworth Urban District would not be supported by the apparent rule that every former urban district without a successor parish becoming a separate unparished area as noted by Stortford which would likely be OR. Also along the same lines do we know about Felixstowe? When I added info on the districts I didn't mention either the district or parish being abolished. We know that the district was abolished and also that the urban parish would have been abolished but The Local Government (Successor Parishes) Order 1973 doesn't mention Felixstowe yet UKBMD doesn't make any mention of Felixstowe parish ever being abolished (if like Aldeburgh it did then it wouldn't mention it being abolished if it had the same area or name) and the town council says the parish council was established in 1974 so I've played it safe and decided not to mention anything about a successor parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the wording for Lowestoft is adequate as it stands - notes charter trustees 1974-2017 and then establishment of new parish and town council in 2017. No need to go into unparished status. Felixstowe was given a successor parish in 1974 - they weren't all created by the same statutory instrument. It was created by the The Local Government (Successor Parishes) (No. 2) Order 1973. Stortford (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Stortford: I though that the consensus was that unparished areas could be mentioned in Governance sections but maybe we need to revisit this? Maybe instead of the previous wording something like "No successor parish was created for the former borough and so it became unparished" that is to say removing the word "area" from the text. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying you can't mention it having been unparished in the governance section (mentioning in the lead was the bigger issue elsewhere), but do weigh up what value it adds to the article. For somewhere which is no longer unparished and for the whole time it was unparished had charter trustees, I'd say the charter trustees were the more meaningful thing to mention for the period between 1974 and 2017. Stortford (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)