Talk:Bournemouth

message: As I cut some details from the article to keep the length down it occurred to me that some people might think there was a political motive in my reducing the number of references to Poole (X is really in Poole and not in Bournemouth, etc). My motive for removing some of these references is that some of them are repeated, and that some of them are excessive detail in a long article, particularly if they are already mentioned in the article of the relevant subject. While it is an interesting phenomenon that deserves a mention, well to me at least, it doesn't need half a dozen mentions in an article that is already very long. That is my only concern here. Britmax (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. At present I think there are only two references to the phenomenon, in the lead and in the economy. There used to be half a dozen. Good work.  LordHarris 19:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Poole reference reductions

message: I know that the economy section is going to need a lot of work; the listing of companies based in Bournemouth is arbitary. Much better would be to form an overview of the sectors and topics with breadth (e.g. employment (see reference note)). The table could be improved, and the referenced source's value is debatable. A better source, I believe, is this one: http://urbecon.co.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/TheBournemouthEconomy2005.pdf. But what does anyone else think? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work to the article so far. I think the table can go, its not particularly clear or useful. I removed and replaced a similar table added by the same user to Poole#Economy a while back. The list of Bournemouth based companies would obviously be better off worked into the prose. Your source seems reliable and very comprehensive but is possibly a little bit out of date. The Bournemouth Council, Dorset County Council and Bournemouth Echo (examples   ) websites might also be useful references. BarretBonden (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Barret, I agree on the table also. I didn't really check the date of that source, I will still use it but will be sure to include mention of the date. Your sources are much appreciated, and will no doubt come in hand a lot when I get to writing the Economy section. Help doing this, especially from someone who's edited an equivalent article to GA, would be great! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After some investigating I found a source which might be of worth (could someone check it over). It is reliable, recent and provides a good insight.  MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: I looked up this article because I found some references to the British Hard Court Championships having been played in Bournemouth (see History of tennis: The first Grand Prix tournament was the British Hard Court Championships played on clay at Bournemouth on 28 April.), but I could not find a mention of tennis in the Sport section. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the subject to add it, but it certainly seems a sufficiently important part of Bournemouth's sport history to be included. Coyets (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sport 

message: I have found no evidence that Bournemouth is twinned with Târgu Mureş, Romania. Please confirm.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luketh (talk • contribs) 14:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Twin Towns

message: Proposed originally by Britmax 3 years ago, I agree that the article Bournemouth Eye should be merged into this in a new section, given that it's too small to require its own article. Any thoughts about it? ErKURITA (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It should be merged into the culture and recreation section. The Bournemouth Eye article will likely never be more than a stub. Barret (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, didn't see your replay. Sounds good to me, anyone else? ErKURITA (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge "Bournemouth Eye" into Bournemouth as a new section 

message: A decade or so ago Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch was going to be merged into one and called Wessex City - or City Wessex. This could have some link when it is discussed about certain things being linked  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.18.225 (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of Wessex City 

message: In March I went to Bournemouth and I visited the Pier of Bournemouth and Boscombe (suburb). At the pictures you can see the same Pier but once it's called "Boscombe Pier" and once "Bournemouth Pier". I think that it's the Bournemouth Pier because there is a theatre on it. The Boscombe Pier is much smaller. If you don't agree I can post a photo of Boscombe Pier.
Sorry for my bad english.
-- Renredam (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pier 

message: I am getting more than a little frustrated at having my edit to the wildlife section removed. There can be no possible reason for deleting the comments on the Fox, Rabbit, Badger, Frog, Toad, Newt and Bat populations. As to the Pumas, I posted verification as requested, which was then removed on copyright grounds. How can I show that both the National Media and the local Police have agreed that there are Pumas in Bournemouth, if I'm not allowed to qoute the proof that I've been asked to provide ?  Would somebody PLEASE check the back edits, and then post an ACCEPTABLE version ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.228.165 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you read the comments posted on your talk page? Original research is not allowed - see WP:OR. Then there's the issue of copyright. Your latest contribution was a copy/paste directly from a press article - see WP:COPYVIO for why this is not acceptable. If you want to use sources such as newspaper articles then please summarise the contents and then give the source as a reference. We are hear to help you, we absolutely want you to contribute,  but people do get a little tired with editors who don't seem to take notice of what they are told or suggestions they are given. --Simple Bob (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foxes, Rabbits, Badgers, and, indeed, Pumas in Bournemouth Wildlife population 

message: I believe there is some outdated information in the "Education" section of the wiki. It says "...the four sixth forms.". However, there is a new sixth form, Avonbourne sixth form. I don't know if Avonbounre is actually included in this number, but it's a relatively new sixth form, So could someone check to see if it should be 'five sixth forms' instead of four?
:Also, should someone add a list of all places of education under the "Education" section? Most primary schools have no wiki pages of their own, so I feel that the bournemouth wiki is the only way to say what schools are in bournemouth. Should we add a list? FranktheTank (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello FranktheTank. The education section is generally more about how the system is structured and run rather than a list of schools. Primary schools in particular aren't considered notable and would only be mentioned if they were the only school in a small village for example. See here. Secondary schools are usually only mentioned with reference to their recent academic acheivements and the section should be written in prose rather than list form which is frowned upon. Thanks for taking an interest in the article though. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

text: P.S. The four schools with sixth forms, according to the source, are: Bournemouth School, Bournemouth School for Girls, Oakmead College of Technology and St Peter’s Catholic Comprehensive; so no, it doesn't include Avonbourne. If we can find a reliable source that says so, we can insert it into the article.--Ykraps (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Updates

message: I really think the paragraph referring to the Imax/Waterfront building should be removed from the Landmarks section of this article. I appreciate it has dominated the seafront for sometime but it is now clearly being demolished and although there are many thoughts about what constitutes a landmark, surely it has to be visible which the Imax won't be for much longer. If anyone has any ideas how it can be re-worked into another section (Culture or History perhaps) I will gladly consider that.--Ykraps (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably belongs in a section on former buildings (with the Winter Gardens perhaps?). Of course it is no longer a landmark but it did get a lot of coverage (Britain's most hated building?) They were working on the inside backwards from the front today, by the way. Britmax (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A former landmarks section would solve the problem but doesn't quite conform to the Manual of style, How to write about settlements. User:Phil Whiston has moved it to the History section so perhaps it can stay there and we can add others such as the Winter Gardens, as you suggest. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

text: They're certainly not hanging about. I thought it would take months for them to even get started so I wasn't too bothered when I heard demolitition was to begin the day after I inserted the stuff into the article! I was one of those who hated it and wanted to see it torn down but now it's happening I feel a sense of loss. It certainly was imposing.--Ykraps (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it to History since it clearly didn't qualify as a landmark anymore and its building and demolition is now part of the history of Bournemouth, personally I think the history section is the right place. Phil Whiston (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMAX 

message: Someone keeps adding the figure of over half a million to the infobox of this article. The population of Bournemouth is a long way short of this so I can only assume that they think the population of the surrounding urban area counts in some way. The problem with this is that Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch are independent towns with their own governance and identities. Whether or not you think they should be joined is not the point: the fact is that they are not, and it is inaccurate to suggest that they are. This figure might be useful to people assessing infrastructure needs, etc, but that does not make it relevant to this article, and the South East Dorset Conurbation has its own. I await discussion to form consensus on this issue. Britmax (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the Bournemouth article we are talking about. You are talking about an area better covered by the South East Dorset Conurbation article. As far as I am concerned these figures should be in the articles for the conurbations but not the individual towns. I know the difference. You don't seem to. Britmax (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Britmax. Note that the unsigned posting above is by User:Concept4life who is a self-confessed sock of the unregistered editor who has been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring over the population figure. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

text: As your English is demonstrably better, I am inclined to believe your claim and indulge you further. As explained above and on the talk page (prior to it being deleted) my main problem with these figures is that the area to which they relate is not clearly defined. If we do not know the area, the figures are meaningless. The articles you are linking to are Wikipedia articles which do not qualify as  reliable sources and do not contain any additional citations. The  metropolitan article describes the Bournemouth Metropolitan Area as, “Bournemouth/Poole, Christchurch, Wimborne/Ferndown” and gives the population as 531,000. The urban article decribes the Bournemouth Urban Area also as “Bournemouth/Poole, Christchurch, Wimborne/Ferndown”, plus “New Milton”, and gives the population as 446,266. Are you seeing any problems yet?--Ykraps (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Please don't. Consensus is against adding these figures to the article for the reasons given above and on your talk page, which have now been deleted, but just for the record: The 2011 ONS figure for the Bournemouth Urban Area (M54500) is not 466,626 it is 383,713 as detailed here [] (scroll down to line no. 2092). It comprises Bournemouth (M54502), Burton (M54505), Christchurch (M54503), New Milton/Barton-on-Sea (M54504) and Poole (M54501). However, if you add the individual area populations together you come up 480 short which suggests to me that the ONS is just as confused as the rest of us!--Ykraps (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Sorry, my mistake, those are the 2001 figures, but the fact remains that there is no consensus here.--Ykraps (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Several points:1) The figure you keep adding is not the urban population of Bournemouth, it is the population of the South East Dorset Conurbation2) This figure is very clearly described in the lead section of the main text, where an explanation is given for what it means - unlike in the infobox, where 'urban' can be interpreted by readers to mean anything3) You do not currently have any consensus for including this figure in the infobox, so please do not keep adding it. Please see WP:BRD, which explains that editors should not keep changing an article once that change has been reverted once - instead the issue should be discussed4) The state of other articles is not necessarily a criterion by which changes should be made to this article - see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists5) There may be an argument for including the South East Dorset Conurbation figure in the infobox, but not without explanation next to it, stating what it refers to (maybe the infobox template needs adjusting to allow this). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

text: 82.10.114.212, can I ask what geographical area you think that figure of 466,626 refers to because you seem to think it's the population of the borough of Bournemouth and it is not. The population of the entire borough, as of the 2011 census, is 183,491. This figure includes: the town itself (which has a population of around 10,771), Boscombe, Pokesdown, Springbourne, Southbourne, Westbourne, Northbourne, Kinson, Wallisdown, Littledown, Moordown, Iford, Tuckton, Queen's Park, King's Park, Strouden Park, Redhill, Throop, Muscliffe, Talbot Woods, Branksome Woods, Winton, Charminster and possibly some other areas I've missed. The figure you want to add includes: All that listed above plus Poole (a separate borough and Unitary Authority), Christchurch (a borough in East Dorset), Wimborne and Ferndown (two towns in East Dorset), New Milton and Barton-on-Sea (two towns in Hampshire, which isn't even the same county).--Ykraps (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

text: The Area surrounding Bournemouth is much larger than just the town itself. You could say that the City of London is tiny because it only has a population of 7,375 (according to the 2011 Census), but in real terms it wouldn't be realistic because there is a population of over 8 million others, living outside the boundary, which would bring more commuters and tourists compared to a town in the countryside with a relatively similar population. Articles do include the urban area IE City: Southampton Town: Reading, Berkshire and ,I really don't see why the urban population shouldn't be included in this article. I'm not here to start a edit war but please keep your bias to yourself. Many Thanks IP 82.10.114.212 15:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The figure you are quoting is for the city of London [], clearly defined by this map here []. The population of London is 8, 538,700, as shown here [] and defined by this map here []. The City of London is not London, in the same way that Bournemouth town is not the same as Bournemouth. You are quite correct,"The Area surrounding Bournemouth is much larger than just the town itself": The population of the town is 10,771, the population of the area surrounding it (the borough) is 183,491. Did you not read the post above?--Ykraps (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

text: This subject hasn't been revisited in a significant amount of time. Since the last responses from @Britmax and @Ykraps we have since seen the publication of the 2021 census data by the ONS which records the BCP council area as around 400,200 inhabitants, as well as the formation of the BCP unitary authority covering Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. The website citypopulation.de records the Bournemouth Built-up Area Subdivision in 2021 as 200,916 inhabitants. As discussed earlier in this thread it seems odd that the Wikipedia article for Bournemouth, a significant population centre in southern England does not provide recent population statistics in the info box for the former borough neither does it provide the relevant information regarding Bournemouth's urban and metro populations. There is an evident disparity when comparing the Wikipedia articles for other large southern counterpart towns - Southampton, Portsmouth, Reading and Brighton which all cite their respective urban populations in the right hand info box. Furthermore all with the exception of Reading provide a metro population. Brighton's metro population is referenced against the outdated ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom article (of which Bournemouth is also listed). Southampton and Portsmouth cite the entry for South Hampshire, which parallels the existing Wikipedia article for the South East Dorset conurbation. The South East Dorset conurbation article is broadly conterminous with the data regarding the Bournemouth agglomeration referenced by citypopulation.de and to a lesser extent that of the Centre for Cities think tank which defines Bournemouth's PUA (Primary Urban Area) as including the former Dorset Council district of East Dorset which is where the circa 466,000 inhabitants figure is derived from. Understandably there are numerous conflicting sources trying to define Bournemouth's metropolitan population (World Population Review, Macrotrends) but as of last year we now have accurate aggregated data available from the ONS and citypopulation.de. The absence of updated information regarding Bournemouth's population raises a disparity when compared to other towns of equivalence in the region. This information should be rectified to maintain the accuracy and consistency of Wikipedia's content. Aarondgibson (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would anyone come to an article about Bournemouth to find the population of somewhere that isn't Bournemouth? There are other more appropriate articles for the figures you are suggesting, such as  Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole and South East Dorset conurbation. Be aware though that you cannot simply add these figures to infobox. An infobox should only reflect what's in the article so you will need to write a reliably sourced portion of text that accurately describes what these figures pertain to. Not just, "...the urban area has a population of x". The Bournemouth population figure as it stands includes: Bournemouth Town, Westbourne, Northbourne, Kinson, Charminster, Talbot Woods, Winton, Moordown, BearCross, the parts of Wallisdown to the north of the A3049 (Wallisdown Rd), Redhill, Muscliffe, Throop, Townsend, Littledown, Boscombe, King’s Park, Queen’s Park, Strouden Park, Pokesdown, Springbourne, Iford, Southbourne, Tuckton, and Wick. In other words, all the places reliable sources say are part of Bournemouth. And I am of the opinion that that is how it should be. --Ykraps (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: After making a fool of myself with my earlier edits of the cite for the length of the Jurassic Coast, I hope I can regain some of my dignity by trying to explain where I was coming from.
I had visited the http://jurassiccoast.org website earlier, and (still) believe it to be the website of the official body charged by the UK government with looking after that part of the coast. Indeed the Wikipedia Jurassic Coast article cites it as the "Jurassic Coast official website". Granted the pdf file that was originally cited in this article is a tourist leaflet, but the website itself is perfectly legitimate and authoritative when it comes to the information it disseminates.
For those reasons I believe the official website is better than a mere "tourist brochure" and can legitimately be used (indeed certainly should be used) to support facts about the Jurassic Coast. So I would like to suggest replacing the current cite from the UNESCO website (or at least supplementing it) with a page from the jurassiccoast.org website. LL.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowland Laddie (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I have no issues with the website, Perhaps we could use both the unesco site and the JC site, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 21:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be no issue with using either site. However, UNESCO gives the length of the coast as 155km (about 96 miles) while the Jurassic Coast website gives the distance as 95 miles (about 153km). That leaves us with the problem of deciding between these two authorities if we want to cite the length of the coast. Michael Glass (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the UNESCO website is that it gives no indication of the Jurassic Coast's location in relation to Bournemouth whereas the leaflet at least included a map. I think you will struggle finding a source that says Bournemouth is directly to the east though. I'm pretty sure the Jurassic Coast begins on the western side of Poole Harbour, near Old Harry Rocks, which means the town of Poole is directly to the east. This rather begs the question, should it be in the article at all? Citations should be kept in the main body of the article by the way, not in the lead.--Ykraps (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Measurements can't be verified by the number of Google hits. For one thing, they are not independent measurements, but one site copies another.Sometimes it is not possible to decide between sources, as with the article on the geography of the  United States.  Michael Glass (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Almost every source had the length of the River Rhine wrong until somebody on Wikipedia uncovered an ancient typo.Charles (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC) The UNESCO website does not say the Jurassic Coast is 155Km long! It says, "...the property comprises eight sections along 155 km of coast", in other words, not all of that 155Km is the Jurassic Coast.--Ykraps (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Official Jurassic Coast website also does not say the Jurassic Coast is 95 miles long! It says, "...The Jurassic Coast is England's first natural World Heritage Site. Covering 95 miles of  coastline from East Devon to Dorset," This is just over 2.11km shorter {just over 1.31 miles).  This website appear to do two things. It equates "The Jurassic Coast" with the "World Heritage Site" but the wording does not state that the 95 miles of coastline is continuous (though an accompanying picture does suggest that it goes from Orcombe Point to Old Harry Rocks . The difference between the two measurements (just over 1.36%) is greater than what could be explained by a rounding error so I do not know how to account for it or how to decide between the two measurements. Michael Glass (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn’t but the other source, which you removed, does. The 95miles (which isn’t continuous) is along a 96 mile stretch of coastline. When I added the reference to the existing sentence, I added the reference which supported the original text. If you wish to use another reference, you will have to change the text so it agrees with the new source. It really is that simple! --Ykraps (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, I did not read your previous post properly and assumed we were still discussing the UNESCO citation. The Jurassic Coast site you are now linking to is, to all intents and purposes, the same as the leaflet source (they are both produced by the same people) which you removed because you thought it wasn’t good enough. I expect that the reason it doesn’t say that the Jurassic Coast is continuous, is because it isn’t continuous, it is in eight sections, as it says on the UNESCO site, and the reason UNESCO gives the length as 155Km/96 miles is because their measurement probably includes the gaps between the sections.--Ykraps (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ykraps, your account could explain the difference between the measurements from UNESCO and "The Official Jurassic Coast Website." I just rechecked the map  and it shows Old Harry Rocks almost directly south of Bournemouth. (So does Google Maps.) so it appears that the map didn't support the text in that particular detail. Michael Glass (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Bournemouth is not directly to the east of the Jurassic Coast, nor is it directly adjacent in any direction. It is at least 7 miles away so it will be difficult finding a source that supports that particular part of the sentence.--Ykraps (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps the text could be changed to say that Bournemouth was directly north of Old Harry Rocks, the westernmost end of the Jurassic Coast. This may be better. Michael Glass (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Michael Glass has changed the text as suggested immediately above. I've just corrected it to read that Old Harry Rocks are the easternmost point, not the westernmost. However the wording as it now stands seems unsatisfactory to me. A line drawn northwards from Old Harry Rocks intersects the coast again at Canford Cliffs, which are part of Poole borough rather than Bournemouth. Bournemouth is really aligned NNE of Old Harry. Similarly the sentence about Bournemouth's own coastline stretching from Sandbanks needs clarifying; Sandbanks, Canford Cliffs and Branksome Chine are all within Poole borough (though the latter two are closer to Bournemouth town centre than to Poole town centre). It seems to me that the original wording about Bournemouth being "directly east" of the Jurassic Coast was probably referring to the situation when England's south coast is viewed as a whole, and as such doesn't seem an unreasonable statement to make. However for technical accuracy, rather than using the debatable word "directly", it may be better to just make a statement of measurement - something like " SSW of Bournemouth are Old Harry Rocks, the easternmost end of the Jurassic Coast." PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's South West or maybe South South West, mate. The only things south of Bournemouth are a lot of water and France, until Navitus build their turbines, maybe. Britmax (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I said SSW. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it do just to say that Bournemouth was north of Old Harry Rocks or should it be north north-east? Michael Glass (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

text: If you've ever driven US Route 50 in Nevada, then Bournemouth is a little way south of Stonehenge, by comparison. To more serious matters, will a non-local know where Old Harry's Rocks are? I think saying something like "Bournemouth is north-east of the Isle of Purbeck, at the edge of the Jurassic Coast" and leave it at that. Leave the specifics to OpenStreetMap. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jurassic Coast cite 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Bournemouth. 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/20130620195158/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/NewsEvents/SpotlightFeatures/SupportingContent/BournemouthBrouchure08.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/NewsEvents/SpotlightFeatures/SupportingContent/BournemouthBrouchure08.pdf
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65XtO4O7E?url=http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=90980&filetype=pdf to http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=90980&filetype=pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620195158/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/NewsEvents/SpotlightFeatures/SupportingContent/BournemouthBrouchure08.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/NewsEvents/SpotlightFeatures/SupportingContent/BournemouthBrouchure08.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://russell-cotes.bournemouth.gov.uk/Collections/Background.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://russell-cotes.bournemouth.gov.uk/Collections/Storyofcollectioncontext.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620195158/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/NewsEvents/SpotlightFeatures/SupportingContent/BournemouthBrouchure08.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/NewsEvents/SpotlightFeatures/SupportingContent/BournemouthBrouchure08.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bsolive.com/orchestra
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.winchester.anglican.org/parish-life/parishes/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bournemouth. 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/20130925184819/http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/bournemouth/ to http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/bournemouth/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120808194459/http://www.plymouth-diocese.org.uk/thediocese/introduction_dio.ashx to http://www.plymouth-diocese.org.uk/thediocese/introduction_dio.ashx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 26 external links on Bournemouth. 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://www.webcitation.org/65XusNzIW?url=http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PlanningBuildings/ConservationDesignTrees/Conservation/historyofbournemouth.aspx to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PlanningBuildings/ConservationDesignTrees/Conservation/historyofbournemouth.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100507011315/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/atlas/ to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/atlas/
*Added  tag to http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/lgbce/all-reviews/south-west/dorset/bournemouth-unitary-authority-ua/bournemouth_5659-5263__e__.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830010801/http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/rural/rural-atlas/atlas-maps/107.jpg to http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/rural/rural-atlas/atlas-maps/107.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003103023/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120216160131/http://www.england-in-particular.info/rivers/rs-bourn.html to http://www.england-in-particular.info/rivers/rs-bourn.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003103023/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130505161825/http://www.swo.org.uk/state-of-the-south-west-2011/economy/economic-performance/gross-value-added/ to http://www.swo.org.uk/state-of-the-south-west-2011/economy/economic-performance/gross-value-added/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620195111/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PeopleLiving/BournemouthStatistics/Themes/Economy/EconomicBulletinFeb2012.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PeopleLiving/BournemouthStatistics/Themes/Economy/EconomicBulletinFeb2012.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.visit-dorset.com/dbimgs/Value%20of%20Tourism%20-%20Dorset%20%26%20Districts%2011.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129054402/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocracy/Councillors/CouncillorCommitteeMeeting/EconomyTourismOverviewScrutinyPanel/2011/10/05/Minutes/111005.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocracy/Councillors/CouncillorCommitteeMeeting/EconomyTourismOverviewScrutinyPanel/2011/10/05/Minutes/111005.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151008110912/http://rnli.org/findmynearest/beach/Pages/Bournemouth-West-Beach.aspx to http://rnli.org/findmynearest/beach/Pages/Bournemouth-West-Beach.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620195247/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PeopleLiving/BournemouthStatistics/Themes/Economy/BRESABI/BRES-2011-provisional.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PeopleLiving/BournemouthStatistics/Themes/Economy/BRESABI/BRES-2011-provisional.pdf
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6DRcMnlhS?url=http://russell-cotes.bournemouth.gov.uk/Collections/Background.asp to http://russell-cotes.bournemouth.gov.uk/Collections/Background.asp
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6DRcZLEKS?url=http://russell-cotes.bournemouth.gov.uk/Collections/Storyofcollectioncontext.asp to http://russell-cotes.bournemouth.gov.uk/Collections/Storyofcollectioncontext.asp
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65uWs3x7N?url=http://www.bsolive.com/orchestra to http://www.bsolive.com/orchestra
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119053450/http://aucb.ac.uk/news/exhibition/aucb-helps-launch-arts-sea-festival/ to http://aucb.ac.uk/news/exhibition/aucb-helps-launch-arts-sea-festival/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620194750/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PlanningBuildings/ConservationDesignTrees/cdtfiles/ListedBuildings.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PlanningBuildings/ConservationDesignTrees/cdtfiles/ListedBuildings.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130820193424/http://www.bournemouthballoon.com/balloon-facts.aspx to http://bournemouthballoon.com/balloon-facts.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130820194400/http://www.bournemouthballoon.com/about.aspx to http://bournemouthballoon.com/about.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111152121/http://www.thisisdorset.net/news/tidnews/9833565.New_sponsor_deal_for_Cherries__stadium/ to http://www.thisisdorset.net/news/tidnews/9833565.New_sponsor_deal_for_Cherries__stadium/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002031202/http://www.sdrt.org.uk/trust/resources/resource.php?resource=SDJRHistory to http://www.sdrt.org.uk/trust/resources/resource.php?resource=SDJRHistory
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527135824/http://www.bournemouthairport.com/bohweb.nsf/Content/New-Terminal-Development-Overview to https://www.bournemouthairport.com/bohweb.nsf/Content/New-Terminal-Development-Overview
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003103023/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003103023/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003103023/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6ELbTODks?url=http://www.salisbury.anglican.org/whos-who/diocese to http://www.salisbury.anglican.org/whos-who/diocese
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620195158/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/NewsEvents/SpotlightFeatures/SupportingContent/BournemouthBrouchure08.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/NewsEvents/SpotlightFeatures/SupportingContent/BournemouthBrouchure08.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Bournemouth. 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/20131003103354/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocracy/MayorofBournemouth/Mayor-MakingandAnnualCivicService.aspx to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocracy/MayorofBournemouth/Mayor-MakingandAnnualCivicService.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120909030137/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/LeisureCultureLibraries/Parks/Bournemouths-Countryside/LocalNatureReserves/TurbaryCommonLocalNatureReserve.aspx to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/LeisureCultureLibraries/Parks/Bournemouths-Countryside/LocalNatureReserves/TurbaryCommonLocalNatureReserve.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502031802/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PeopleLiving/BournemouthStatistics/Themes/Economy/Economy.aspx to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PeopleLiving/BournemouthStatistics/Themes/Economy/Economy.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003102351/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/LeisureCultureLibraries/SeafrontBeaches/PierAttractions/BoscombePier.aspx to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/LeisureCultureLibraries/SeafrontBeaches/PierAttractions/BoscombePier.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523124520/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/StreetsTransport/PublicTransport/LocalTravel.aspx to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/StreetsTransport/PublicTransport/LocalTravel.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I am not a Wikipedia expert, however within the population column, I am trying to be in-depth and include the 'Town' population and 'Local Authority' population like these Reading, Berkshire, Brighton or Woking. I have tried and failed to find ONS statistics so if anyone finds time to edit and add this, would be appreciated. Especially after the recent council merger. Many Thanks - arofun  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.228.187 (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi arofun, the population figure already includes the population of the town and borough district. The new unitary authority governs the borough districts of Christchurch, Poole and Bournemouth and you can find how many people fall under its jurisdiction by adding the figures from all three areas (available on the ONS website). I can see how a figure like that belongs in the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole article but I am struggling to see the relevance of it in this one. After all, Bournemouth is also governed by Parliament, should we include the population of the UK also?--Ykraps (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  More in-depth population column that includes town and borough. 

message: Some of the photos should be updated, namely the one in the infobox that shows the now demolished Waterfront building and the one of the exterior of Pier Theatre, which has since been converted into an indoor rock climbing centre. SonnikuSan (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photos 

message: :: The district with borough status was abolished in 2019 so should be in the former boroughs category. Bournemouth Borough Council deals with the former council that was rescoped in 2010 to be about the council but now abolished it could be changed back. Crouch, Swale (talk)  16:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello , The Borough Council was abolished but Bournemouth's borough status was retained through an act of parliament, passed on 20 March 2019.[] Poole was also granted borough status at the same time.--Ykraps (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S I moved this conversation to its own section for clarity. I hope you don't mind.--Ykraps (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Charter trustees are set up when a district with borough or city status are abolished to retain things like mayors, the borough its self along with the council have still been abolished. Since Christchurch became a parish there was no charter trustees formed but Bournemouth and Poole have them. Crouch, Swale (talk)  08:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The source says that the town's Borough Charter status was retained through an act of parliament. To the best of my knowledge, a Borough Charter grants borough status so I'm having difficulty interpreting it any other way. However, the source also refers to the former Borough of Bournemouth so you may well be right. Either way, I don't feel strongly about it.--Ykraps (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes the borough charter was retained when the borough was abolished, that's the point of a charter trustees see Charter trustees#Changes in 2019. If all boroughs that were abolished Crouch, Swale (talk)  16:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Borough status