Talk:Christchurch, Dorset

message: A minor point I suspect. The word Nazi in the lead and body of the article, when referring to one of the protagonists in WWII,   should read Nazi Germany. It was not the Nazi political party itself which directly threatened England. --Senra (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi germany 

message: As requested, here is a second look at the article to follow up on the Peer review I did back in July. 
*There are still 3 or so dab links that need to be fixed - see here -Fixed.
*There is also one dead link found with this tool hereThere are now two dead links. -Fixed.
*There are still some refs that do not have complete information - for example current ref 1 is just a link and title and needs at least a publisher and access date. -Fixed
*Or current ref 62 is "This is Dorset". http://www.this-is-dorset.co.uk/christchurch.htm. Retrieved 30 July 2010." and needs a publisher. By the way, what makes this a Relaible source? - Replaced 'dubious' reference. 
*I also note this same webpage is used later as ref 87 - assuming it is a RS, then the refs should be combined into one. - N.A.
*This is much better in terms of references, but there are a few places that still need refs Retirement homes, such as McCarthy and Stone, and luxury waterside apartments now stand where there was once farms, factories and boat yards and it is hard to imagine that Christchurch was once an important trading port and prospered due to its industry and manufacturing. reads like opinion or WP:OR without a ref. - Toned down and 3 refs added.
*Twin towns also needs a ref (or more)- Referenced
*It is OK to have some refs in the middle of a sentence, especially if they are after punctuation. Theu should be the exception, rather than the rule
*There are still a lot of short (one or two sentences) paragraphs, especially in Demographics and the sections after it. These disrupt the flow of the article, and should be combined with others, or perhaps expanded. - short sentences combined, expanded or deleted.
*Why does Railways need three separate one sentence paragraphs, and not just one paragraph with three sentences -Done
*Bullet point lists often read better as prose. - All bulleted sections converted to prose.
*What is the organizational basis of Notable persons? It does not seem to be alphabetical or chronological (two most common ways to organize such sections) -Section in chronological order except where it has been convenient to group family members together.
*Giving the price per hour for parking seems to be non-encylcopedic - see WP:NOT too - Removed
*Overall this looks better - keep up the good work!
If a link is dead, look for replacements for it. The original website may just have moved (so I just checked and the bus timetable is dead - my guess is a new timetable is probably up on the web somewhere). You can also check the archives at the Wayback Machine or WebCite (the latter website lets you back things up). See also WP:LINKROT Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 21:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second review 

message: I think there is too much about the airfield in here. The text should be added to RAF Christchurch leaving a short summary here and a link to RAF Christchurch.
I think this article should have a little section listing the historical districts of Christchurch:
I think eventually they will all have their own articles.--Penbat (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I started to copy some info onto the RAF Christchurch page when, as you now know, I came across an anomally. I think adding historical districts is a good idea but I'd like to take a look at what WP Settlements says first. BTW I think Holdenhurst was part of Christchurch at one time.--Ykraps (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would make sense as little places like Blackwater are already done. I suspect "Friars Cliff" was a post WW2 invented name. I note that nothing similar has been done for Bournemouth for places like Kinson but they are not so overtly historical as Xchurch districts.--Penbat (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Hi Penbat, I've left a message at BarretBonden's talk page as I'm interested to hear his take on this. I personally think the districts should go in the article, possibly in the geography section or maybe the history section (if we're going to mention historical districts). I'm not sure about Friars Cliff. Is it marked on a map? I thought it was just made up by the residents so they could disassociate themselves from Mudeford. --Ykraps (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Friars Cliff is marked on the map but it is arguable if it deserves its own article although at least some of the housing in the area I think is pre WW2. One of the residential roads has a George V post box in it.--Penbat (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The presence of the George V postbox would seem to confirm that the housing is pre WWII (pre '36 in fact) as the houses must surely have been there before the postbox.--Ykraps (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I would just link the districts where necessary throughout the article (even if they are still red links) and perhaps add a small paragraph in the geography section similar to Oldham#Divisions and suburbs or include them in a list similar to those in Peterborough#Geography and Poole#Geography. Barret (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We may as well have a Christchurch template as per Oldham#Divisions and suburbs.--Penbat (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive done a sandbox template: User:Penbat/template:Areas of Christchurch, Dorset. Any comments from anybody ? Seems tempting to add other features of Christchurch to the same template. --Penbat (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airfield and historical districts 

message: Firstly excellent work on the article much improved.
I note a contradiction on dates of the castle From the History section: : Sometime early in the 12th century, Christchurch got its castle. Originally a wooden fort built by Richard de Redvers, first cousin to King Henry I, it was later rebuilt in stone by Baldwin de Redvers to resist King Stephen during the civil war with the Empress Matilda.
From Landmarks:
Christchurch castle
Christchurch Castle is of Norman origin and of a motte and bailey construction. There has been a castle on this spot since 924 AD when; after Aethelwold captured the town ramparts in 901 AD, Edward the Elder decided to fortify the town further with a wooden fort on a motte.[18]
Is the 924AD date proven and is it on the site of the present castle.Phil Whiston (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The 12th century is when the stone keep, which is still standing today, was constructed but it is widely held that there was a wooden fort there prior to this. The reference for the 924 ad date comes from a guide to the Avon Valley Path and the author claims this information comes from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. A number of other sources give the date of the wooden fort as circa 1100 which is quite a bit later. I have been searching for a second source but haven't been able to find one and it is likely that I will end up rewriting the sentence to make it less definite. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christchurch Castle 

message: For those interested I have created a new  Stanpit stub article.--Penbat (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New [[Stanpit]]  stub article 

message: Ive started a test Christchurch general purpose template User:Penbat/template:Christchurch, Dorset. Seems like a good idea. Any ideas for what else to put into it ? IMO the same ought to be done for Bmouth and Poole.--Penbat (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Verwood i think is in the political constituency of Christchurch. Anyway I take it that you approve of the template in principle. I think i may put it in the Christchurch article in expanded form. We dont need to get hung up about the precise content of the template. The template is principally supposed to list active Wikilinks. It may be a long time before these obscure districts get done.--Penbat (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Template:Christchurch, Dorset now created.--Penbat (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Penbat/template:Christchurch, Dorset]] 

message: Christchurch was moved from the county of Hampshire to Dorset.  The Geography section covering this needs to be worked very carefully. Andrew Swallow (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Andrew, can you elaborate on what you think needs reworking? I am having difficulty understanding how moving the borough from Hampshire to Dorset affects the physical geography, particularly as the borough boundaries remained the same. The only possible confusion I can see arising is that the section talks about Hengistbury Head, ownership of which passed to Bournemouth in 1930, along with a portion of the spit west of the Black House, but this is talked about in the history section.--Ykraps (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the first sentence of the Geography section at 17:05, October 31, 2013 'Dorset' was changed back to 'Hampshire'.  Either the first change was vandalism or the sentence is ambiguous.  Since 'Hampshire' was the historic country I am going with ambiguous.  Andrew Swallow (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Initially the sentence read, "Christchurch is the most easterly coastal town of Dorset and lies within the historic county boundaries of Hampshire", meaning it is currently in Dorset but was historically in Hampshire. It was altered at 16:58 then reverted at 17:05 by the same editor, presumably when he/she realised his/her mistake. I am happy with the current wording but if you find it ambiguous, I suggest removing the "...and lies within the historic county boundaries of Hampshire" bit altogether and make the first sentence, "Christchurch is the most easterly coastal town of Dorset. It abuts Bournemouth to the west and...". The '74 county boundary changes are already mentioned in the article so I see no need to repeat the information in the geography section.--Ykraps (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I chanced on this five year old discussion: a classic example of county confusion. More worrying is that this sort of thinking runs freely and unchecked throughout all UK geography articles. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hampshire/Dorset 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Christchurch, Dorset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120323080443/http://www.dorsetforyou.com/346247 to http://www.dorsetforyou.com/346247
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090618031755/http://www.debretts.com:80/social-season/christchurch-carnival.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/social-season/christchurch-carnival.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Christchurch, Dorset. 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/20090705140124/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/areal/uk.html to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/areal/uk.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308132816/http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf to http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308132816/http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf to http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308132816/http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf to http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308132816/http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf to http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308132816/http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf to http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308132816/http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf to http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308132816/http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf to http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308132816/http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf to http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308132816/http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf to http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308132816/http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf to http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308132816/http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf to http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515074849/http://www.communigate.co.uk/dorset/clhs/page11.phtml to http://www.communigate.co.uk/dorset/clhs/page11.phtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308132816/http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf to http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308132816/http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf to http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=129940&filetype=pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101101082435/http://www.communigate.co.uk:80/dorset/clhs/page13.phtml to http://www.communigate.co.uk/dorset/clhs/page13.phtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Christchurch, Dorset. 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/20120406081859/http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1002678.pdf to http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1002678.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727004018/http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyviewer_google/googleviewer.html to http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyviewer_google/googleviewer.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.communigate.co.uk/dorset/clhs/page13.phtml
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) 05:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I suggest splitting this into an article for the district at Borough of Christchurch like what was done with Preston, Lancashire and City of Preston, Lancashire. See WP:UKDISTRICTS. As can be seen at Christchurch, Dorset#Governance the boundaries are recent and are larger than the town's. The district is due to be abolished next year so the current content would probably be inappropriate anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk)  10:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What is it precicisely, you think ought to be removed from this article?--Ykraps (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the content in the infobox and changed to a standard infobox UK place such as Weymouth and some of the content that relates purely to the modern district as opposed to the former borough. Crouch, Swale (talk)  10:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not sure why you want to split the article. The council is due to be abolished next year but the district will still exist; whether it retains its borough status or not remains to be seen. Added to which, there doesn't seem to be much about the borough in this article so I don't quite know what you think will go in the new article. I am anticipating that the current article will require some rewriting but I think that creating a separate article about the borough is a tad pointless, particularly as, as I've already mentioned, it might not keep its borough status. Happy to hear the thoughts of others though.--Ykraps (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Having 'Christchurch' as its name, I am sure many people will be curious to wonder are there many Christians in Christchurch today? As one who is used to  seeing figures about percentages of the local population who declared in census what religion they were, it would be good to see it mentioned in the Demography or Religion section of this Good Article. Note that religion figures are given in the wiki article on the town's great New Zealand namesake city.Cloptonson (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Carry on then Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I put this up as a suggestion to take up by those (especially those local to Christchurch, I am not a local). None of the statistical sources currently used in this article have religious statistics on the local population.Cloptonson (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

text: In the 2001 census, 67.1% of Christchurch residents identified as Christian, 1.5% had another religion, 7.7% refused to state their religion, and 23.6% said they had no religion at all. This was pretty much the picture nationwide so it didn’t really seem notable. I'm not sure I understand your point about Christchurch and Christians either. The religion section was added later by someone who couldn't be bothered to fill it in. I have long been toying with the idea of removing it.--Ykraps (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested improvement - religion in census

message: OK, I've just had a chance to take a proper look through the economy section, and it would benefit from a more thorough rework than just addressing the airport question:
* Paragraph 1 & table - GVA: this data is 15 years old, and applies to the borough area so is heavily skewed by the airport. Is there anything more recent?
*:There is this [], published by BCP council in 2019 but as you can see from this map,[] the Christchurch area includes Hurn and the airport.--Ykraps (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review of the economy section