# Talk:Portishead, Somerset

I would debate that the town has pretty good communications links, what with the M5 being right next to it and there being a decent and regular bus services to Bristol, Weston and Cribbs Causeway. Surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.76 (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2004 (UTC)

I took a section on opposition to asylum seekers. It appeared to be a (very) thinly-veiled suggestion of racism, is of time-limited importance, and quite frankly, there's been opposition to asylum-seekers in most towns in Britain. I'm certain that not everybody in Portishead was opposed. --  ALargeElk | Talk 11:39, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree (asylum seekers bit). It was probably put there as it's the only recent bit of news and everyone seems to be suffering from the "Daily Mail" syndrome in the town. What the paragraph failed to point out is that such a centre already exists in the town and is simply moving to larger premises and expanding. The comments about poor communications links in the town are also iterated throughout the local papers, stating that there is only 1 bus an hour from Bristol: this is simply untrue, there are 2 per hour all day and 3 during rush hour.
If other people agree, I could rewrite that section to include a more realistic description of the town's communications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.1 (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2004 (UTC)

It is near the M5 etc. but the the infrastructure is not being modified to meet the demands of a rapidly growing, commuting population. (and I was reading backwards and replying to the top comment not the bottom.  Ooops.)
Romana 22:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This newspaper circulation site says just under 20,000 aged 15+ in late 2004 (possibly including villages in the area), the town council's site here gives the figures I've just included.  12.5k seems way too low, unless it's excluding some of the areas like North Weston or Redcliffe Bay.  this NHS site gives the ward figures from the 2001 census, which add up to 17,130. --Andrew Norman 16:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me exactly how to pronounce Portishead. Is it Por-tis-head, as in the head on your shoulders? Is is Por-ti-shead, as in a shed in the back yard? Or maybe its Port-is-heed? I have searched all over the net and have asked many, many people. Not an easy task, and its driving me nuts!

My father's just moved into a residential home there, and I grew up in Clevedon just down the coast.  We'd say "portis-head", more or less, without sounding the "h" much if at all, and a slight stress on the last syllable.  --Andrew Norman 08:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

To Andrew Norman: Thank you very much!

The way it's written in Dirk Robson's "Krek Waiter's Peak Bristle", a humorous book about Bristol dialect, is "Port Zed", which is also roughly the right pronunciation. --Andrew Norman 10:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I've lived here for many years, and generally I would say that the residents say "Port-is-head", regardless of the 'correct' pronunciation. I guess anyone trying to affect a somerset accent might say "Portis-'ead"; can't say I can think of many people who would actually say it like that, unless in jest. --Stripybadger 09:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I can second that.  As in Beachy Head (Dover) Spithead (south coast) the 'head' is a head land, a promontory.
As for the name I doubt that it derives from the 'port at the head of the river' since the opening of a river is called 'mouth' and tus would give te name 'Portsmouth' which exists on the southern coast.  I would say then that name comes from 'the port at the headland'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.182.219 (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC) 

I've removed a couple of sentences that just reek of ill-informed opinionated soapboxing:  "The fact that there are two cars or more per new household does not seem to have struck people yet." and "...but with a population of nearly 20,000 this could more accurately be described as apathy.".   Well, IMHO, this is complete nonsensical drivel, probably written by someone at the council that approved the damn plan in the first place.  Looking out my front window right now, I don't see two or more cars per household.  Okay, I'm definitely on the other side of the fence on this issue, but I hope my addition w.r.t. the protest march is acceptable.  I couldn't find a source on Google for this, except: this article, but it was covered in the local TV and print news that week. (Incidentally, I can't cite any sources, but the whole Cabstand development reeks of some pretty dodgy dealings on the part of the consultants, the contractors and the county council.)  Gid 19:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Dodgy dealings? Cui bono? The point of the changes is to connect the rest of the High Street with the new developments - flats, school, library, doctor's surgery - for PEDESTRIANS. No-one ever said that new traffic measures had to be to the benefit of DRIVERS. The real problem with the Cabstand lights is that people don't know how to drive when there's lots of traffic. 
The real problem with the Cabstand lights is that they were unecessary and absurdly expensive, there was no problem before.......
As for two cars or more per household - where are you looking out at? Nearly everyone where I live has two cars - next door has three, next door to them has three, I have three (four if you count my crock). Just take a walk around the new developments.
And there is no County Council here. Have you been reading your Conspiracy for Beginners manual or what?

I've been editing this article to try to bring it closer to the guidelines at WP:UKCITIES and would be interested in what other editors think is need to get it to meet the Wikipedia:Good article criteria? Obviously we need to expand the lead to summarise the article, but is there anything else which would be required?— Rod talk 17:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok Seeing as Good Article Nominations Geography has been negelcted I might review this one tomorrow after some rest. Before I do, why is there an image of portshead firestation randomly in governance? It makes the section below look messy and seems to have no relenvence to governance, if the article at all. It also looks a bit under refferenced, I'll try and fill some in myself tomorrow but you might want a quick look over and consider areas where you think a citation might be appropriate. DharmaDreamer (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added police, fire & ambulance.— Rod talk 09:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Portishead, Somerset/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: LucidLinus (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
MoS is fine and inline with the well acccepted guildline of WP:UKCITIES. No grammatical errors that I could find
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
All citation issues were resolved prior to review, No evidence of Original research.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Follows WP:UKCITIES guildline and stays on topic.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Generally NPOV, the only thing I have to nitpick is the lead, The population is now expanding as the UK population as a whole is expanding this is true for most towns. If portisheads expansion is dsiproportionate could you cite a percentage increase, otherwise it might just be a good idea to include "Like many towns in the region, Portishead is in a period of expansion", I'll leave it up to you.
I've added a figure (with reference to a local newspaper) that the population growth is 40%, well in excess of surrounding towns etc.— Rod talk 08:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
No problem at all
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
All images tagged, captioned appropriatly and relevent. Article well illustrated
Pass/Fail: 
Very good article, only the single npov issue, other than that it seems to be of a GA quality.
New reviewer. LucidLinus asked if I would take over this review, which I agreed to do. 

I agree with Lucid that the article is stable and neutral, and the text is generally well-written. Citations are in good order, but for consistency the retrieval dates should follow a single style. I wouldn't let this hold it up at GA, as all cites do appear complete, but it would obviously be an issue at FAC, and it would look tidier if they were sorted.
accessdate standardised— Rod talk 16:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
There are no page numbers offered at all for a couple of the refs which appear to be books (Smith; Winter). This should be fixed.
This will take a little while to get the books from the library— Rod talk 16:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The coverage across subject areas is very uneven, which I would suggest puts the article on the borderline when it comes to covering all major aspects and staying focussed. It goes into good depth on 20th century history, and geography, but other aspects can be a bit brief. The "culture" section contains two tiny factoids, neither of which is actually about culture in Portishead. (I can hear the eponymous band making some cruel jokes at this stage). Does Portishead have no cultural centre, no theatre, no annual festival of any sort etc? For one possible lead, see this history of the local choral society, but of course you'd need to move from there to reliable source reporting of things.
I've added various events & societies etc— Rod talk 20:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The pre-20th century history seems too brief for a place that has seen settlement since Roman times. There must be some regional historical society publications or similar that would give more on pre-1900 points. Just typing in "Portishead history" into Google scholar turns up a couple of leads that don't look to have been pursued.
I've expanded this section— Rod talk 20:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The following phrase, incidentally, is incomprehensible to a lay reader: "...and which Fairfax took from the Royalists in 1645". It needs context.
Explained during English Civil War for context— Rod talk
On the subject, I think note 5 reference (GENUKI) is wrong, and is more likely to be: "'Poolton - Portishead', A Topographical Dictionary of England (1848), pp. 593-596. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=51219 Date accessed: 17 March 2010. Author/editor can be found there as well and should be included. Please check.
Hopefully sorted— Rod talk 16:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not looking for a comprehensive history, and my point about the references isn't that they have to be comprehensively consulted (as though this were an FAC), but that enough needs to be done to balance the history so that the reader feels they've been given a basic introduction to the pre-20th century period.
Is enough included now?— Rod talk 20:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
ref 38 (Azores High) only supports the one sentence at the end of which it appears. Thus all the climate data about Portishead is actually unreferenced. This needs a fix.
Up to date ref for SW England from the Met office included.— Rod talk 16:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be good if the governance section told us something about current / historical parliamentary representation. Eg. "the current member is X of the Y party / the constituency has returned a member of Z party for the last X elections" or something like that.
I've added a paragraph about the MP & Constituency— Rod talk 20:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave this on hold and am happy to discuss. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


### Progress
That is looking better. More issues:

Now that I've looked more carefully, the article was in serious need of copyediting. I've done most parts, but not sure whether there might be more.
Thanks to User:Malleus Fatuorum this has been improved.— Rod talk 16:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
There is referenced info on population in the lead that actually isn't in the body text. It needs to appear in the demography section in particular, and just be summarised in the lead.
Revised.— Rod talk 12:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The geography section is deficient. Although it contains some interesting info, it actually lacks the most important info: where is Portishead?! This should be the first paragraph. Some of this info is in the lead. I mean where is it in space: on the severn blah, x kilometres west of London or similar; and where is ti politically: in the county of x etc. The lead has this: "is a coastal town on the Severn Estuary within the unitary authority of North Somerset, which falls within the ceremonial county of Somerset England," and this is exactly the sort of thing i mean, with a little more detail.
I've added quite a lot here.— Rod talk 12:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a Gordano School and a Gordano Society. Is there a person by this name who is signficiant in the town's history who needs mentioning in the history section?
What a very good question (which has defeated the reference books I have). As you will see from the additions to Geography there are lots of local placenames linked to Gordano but the origin has so far escaped me.— Rod talk 12:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I've found an explanation and reference from a local paper.— Rod talk 16:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


### Just about done
Thanks to both Rod and Malleus, this now looks much better. Rod, i will assume good faith that you will get those references from the library and sort the page numbers. Obviously there is still some unevenness in the information that is presented, but for a town this size it is inevitable that there may be limited material, for example, on the town economy. In any case, some of that subject matter is covered in the history section. That said, I will pass this now at GA. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and comments, which have improved the article. I've tracked down the Smith & Winter books and hoping to visit the reference library later today for page numbers.— Rod talk 07:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is intentional or not, but in the 3rd paragraph in the Porishead radio section, on the medium ranges, is has services () services, is that supposed to be services () closed..?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.167.170 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 

Thanks for the comment but I can't see the error you are referring to.— Rod talk 18:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't very clear, In the radio section, 3rd paragraph, you are talking about the closures.  It says something along the lines of medium-range services( MF maritime band ...)services. I am not sure if you mean to have services on both sides of the parenthesis.  I didn't mean to cause any confusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.167.170 (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC) 

Thanks I see what you mean now - hopefully fixed.— Rod talk 20:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The local B&Q employee who turned on the Christmas lights last year is not notable, despite being featured in the press at the time as a novelty news item, and should not be included in the section on notable residents. I have already reverted his addition twice and will remove it again (subject to 3RR rules of course), but would prefer if he were not added again. Perhaps other editors interested in this article could watch out for it. --Simple Bob (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw this video yesterday that Portishead removed all of its traffic lights and saw improved traffic flow and no accidents. This is significant for traffic engineering and should be mentioned, but I dont know much about it or the area. --Metallurgist (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I've added a paragraph in the transport section on this.— Rod talk 09:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Great. Thanks for the news articles. Metallurgist (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph has a sentence about Portishead's population that, to a reader in 2016, does not quite read straight:
 It has a population of around 22,000, an increase of over 3,000 since the 2001 census, with a growth rate considerably in excess of surrounding towns. By the time of the 2011 Census the population had increased to approximately 24,000.
What had been the population in 2001, when did it register an 'over 3,000' increase?Cloptonson (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Portishead, Somerset. 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/20100816132301/http://www.guide2portishead.co.uk/client/PortisheadHistory.htm to http://www.guide2portishead.co.uk/client/PortisheadHistory.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322235628/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10107763 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10107763&c_id=10001043
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65lDkD5nn?url=http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/your_MEPs/List-MEPs-by-region/South-West.html to http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/your_MEPs/List-MEPs-by-region/South-West.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100322232617/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/home/southglos/Undefined-Headline/article-1354894-detail/article.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/home/southglos/Undefined-Headline/article-1354894-detail/article.html
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5t7dlmj2f?url=http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/sev_wt_e_new_1815638.pdf to http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/sev_wt_e_new_1815638.pdf
Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080728133713/http://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov.uk/sotp-chapter_5_coast.pdf to http://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov.uk/sotp-chapter_5_coast.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) 10:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)