Talk:Butlin's/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Question

Whatever happened to those cartoon families from the 80's? One was a family of barbers, another a family of brainiacs (or were they college graduates?), and another family looked like they were in the construction business. They were all singing about Butlins. Here's the link, just look under Butlins. 71.111.215.224 02:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Another question...is this the same Butlins as the 'Butlins Crazy House' (http://www.weirduniverse.net/blog/permalink/butlins_crazy_house/)?Ian TO (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge Redcoats (Butlins) stub with this article

Surely that article (well a stub) should be part of this article and not a separate article?Robertsteadman 21:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It has potential Rob, there is a mass of information about the recruitment process, much more info about the uniforms and the roles of the redcoat themselves. far too much to be accommodated in the main article. I tell you what, why don't we let the community decide?Neuropean 21:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have asked you not to call me Rob - please desist. Maybe it has "potential" but, as it stands, it doesn;t warrant a separate article - including it within the mnain Butlin's article would give plenty of people a chance to enhace its potential. Robertsteadman 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest that the list of Redcoats could be made into a proper WP category too. Robertsteadman 07:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that there is enough separate content in this article to merit a separate article and it would unbalance the Butlins article to include it. Within the UK enough people have heard about redcoats to justify this. I would be unhappy to see the articles merged unless there was a consensus to do so within the Wiki community.Neuropean 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is too much content to be merged in and it has numerous pop-culture references to warrant a seperate article. Timb0h 09:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Odd Link?

Any idea why the BT Tower link is included on this page? JXM 18:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, The BT Tower is linked, because Sir Billy Butlin (Butlins) opererated the revolving restaurant at the top of what was then known as The Post Office Tower, 6th March 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.206.220 (talk • contribs)
Well it needs explaining as it looks really weird. Secretlondon 09:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is this logo used rather than any others (this is one which was considered for use in 1999, but a slightly different one was chosen. Also, it has changed since anyhow (see website). Could do with an explaination.

No idea. Sounds like it wants replacing with the current one. Secretlondon 09:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. Old logo tagged as orphaned Cowplopmorris 20:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ideas

What is a "holiday camp"?

As near as I can tell, "holiday camps" are an exclusively British phenomenon, and were a significant part of postwar British working-class culture that have since lost some popularity. But neither this article nor the article on Pontins actually gives a sense of what a holiday camp entails. It seems to be part resort, part amusement park, and part campground. What are the accommodations like? Rustic or fully appointed? The overall impression I get is of a kind of rigidly structured, "mandatory fun" environment, with redcoats coming by the chalet to tell me that shuffleboard begins promptly at 11:00 and latecomers will not receive fruitcup. I mean, I'm sure it isn't like that, but in the absence of information, the imagination runs wild.

I think there needs to be a separate article on the nature, history, and cultural significance of British holiday camps for those of us in the rest of the English-speaking world who have no similar types of institutions.71.67.110.168 (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"The overall impression I get is of a kind of rigidly structured, "mandatory fun" environment, with redcoats coming by the chalet to tell me that shuffleboard begins promptly at 11:00 and latecomers will not receive fruitcup. I mean, I'm sure it isn't like that"
Maybe not nowadays, but from what I've heard it wasn't really too far off that during the 1950s! :-O
88.108.47.64 (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Hi,

I reinstated the mid 1980s photo at the top as I noticed it had been removed- it was occupying white space (beside the contents table) that was otherwise wasted anyway.

Ideally the first photo would be a representative contemporary one, but in the absence of that this image is a passable historical representation. 88.108.47.64 (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Was moved again- don't know why, as the person didn't bother to leave an explanation or edit summary. Moved back for reasons above; please mention why you want it moved next time, as it isn't obvious. 88.108.20.145 (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Orwell

I don't know if this is of any relevance, but somewhere in Orwell's collected essays, during the war, he remarks it is not such a bad time to live unless you are interned in a holiday camp. The term "joycamp" is used in Nineteen Eighty-Four, in the Appendix discussing the principles of Newspeak. I will of course research this and sort out the references if you think it worthwhile. SimonTrew (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox - Possible Article split?

Just noticed an editor adding "and Wales" to the Area Served section of the Infobox. While I completely agree with this (Though more accurately it would be Great Britain since Butlins had a Scottish Presence as well) I've reverted to the moment to put this in context. At the moment the Locations section lists only current camps not historical camps, so Area served should be the Area currently served. This adds into the argument below about Camps no longer being called Camps; Should the infobox reflect the Historic locations and historic historic area served or just the current info? If the company had changed name when Bourne Leisure took over it would have been reasonable to split the article and perhaps that is still the case - should we split historical information into a separate article from the current Butlins info using the Defunct Company infobox for the historical article? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It is likely that a lot of people from Wales go to Minehead. No reason to exclude the Principality, or Scotland for that matter. Perhaps that parameter is unverifiable and should be removed. I can see no reason whatever to split the article which is mainly about the company's history. Hiving off the history to leave a publicity broshure for the current resorts is just not on.--Charles (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Charles I agree entirely, as well as Scots whom I know regularly visit Skegness I've met foreigners at the camps so either the Area currently served is Local (i.e; England) or it's Global. My intention to split would not have been hiving off the history rather retaining the history as the Butlins article and having the new brand information as Butlins(Bourne Leisure) or Bourne_Leisure#Butlins. Some of that information may have be retained within the History but retaining historical context (not being . There may also be an argument for an infobox template that includes current and former locations rather than just locations.

A precedent for the split could be found in the wayn "Sports Direct" Dunlop goods and the original Dunlop brand are separately listed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

While the trading name stays the same I still see no reason to split it. The template change may be a good idea.--Charles (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Former Butlins Redcoats has been nominated for deletion

The nominator should have done this, but please give your input here Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

==Wrong name for article?== yeah bruv Shouldn't this article be called Butlin's since it is named after a singular person named Butlin and the full and proper name is Butlin's Holiday Camps?

-- Butlins dropped the apostrophee in 1999 (see website)

Butlin's has re-introduced the original logo so it would arguably be appropriate now to once again add the apostrophe. However, when searching online in wikipedia, most people are likely to omit the apostrophe for speed and convenience. Therefore if the article were called "Butlin's" I believe a lot of people may have difficulty locating it. For that reason I recommend leaving the name as "Butlins" without the apostrophe.Pushbutton (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect use of word to describe our current Resorts

The term "Camp" is incorrect tone and termonology. Where reference is made to our three current Resorts of Bognor Regis, Skegness and Minehead the correct tone and term to be used is "Resort" or "Resorts". Correcting this error is not a conflict of interest, we are not attempting to promote our business with this correction but we simply wish to correct the copy where needed. This matter is of grave concern to us and we wish to escalate this to the highest level possible.

We Are Butlins 16:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearebutlins (talk • contribs)

In the historical context they were known as Camps, in common reference they are known as Camps. If you can reference an external source that is not the Butlins corporate homepage, I could see it being placed into the History section as Corporate Re-branding that occurred on whatever date. However because 65-70 years of history as "Camps" outweighs a handful as "resorts" the names of the camps and the overall reference should not be changed. As others have said to you, representing an entity and making changes to that entity's WP page is a conflict of interest even if you think the change is so minor as to not matter. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Type into Google Search engine "Butlins Resorts" and you will see there is over 90,500 such results. Further more go to Google Keyword Tool https://adwords.google.co.uk/select/KeywordToolExternal and type in "Butlins Resort" and you will see over 400 searches made last month for "Butlins Resort" then type in "Butlins Camps" and you will see ZERO searches done for those keyowrds. If the every day public searches made on search engines is not enough evidence for you to correct these errors then nothing ever will be and Wiki can no longer be used as an accurate knowledge base. We Are Butlins 17:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearebutlins (talk • contribs)
I expect most searches were for just Butlins. This page is not here to promote your corporation. It is about the overall history of Butlins, which will include the more recent change of terminology. Searching Wikipedia for "Butlins resorts" gives Butlins as the top result, which should be good enough for you.--Charles (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
As Charles says, Additionally based on your own Criteria "Butlins Camp" or "Butlins Holiday Camp" give 110 hits not zero (That's a quarter of your Resort value) and just UK searches for "Holiday Camp" 67,600 (which is a term used to address only UK Holiday Camps) compared to "Holiday Resort" 130,000 (which is a term used to Address Resorts worldwide.)But most people just search for "Butlins" 845,000 and don't reveal whether they think it's a camp or resort. Wikipedia is an accurate knowledge base because it gives information in the correct context rather than changing everything to represent current trends. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The figures I quoted were for Local last month you have looked up Global, if your going to do that have the decency to also report the Butlins Resorts stats in the same fashion of which read 480, some four times the figure you quoted. We Are Butlins 09:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearebutlins (talk • contribs)
Further more, you stated "If you can reference an external source that is not the Butlins corporate homepage, I could see it being placed into the History section as Corporate Re-branding that occurred on whatever date. However because 65-70 years of history as "Camps" outweighs a handful as "resorts" the names of the camps and the overall reference should not be changed." I have provided not one or two external sources but over 90,500 external page links. In addition Butlins has not been known as "Camps" for the 65-70 years you claim, our longest serving employee can not even think back far enough to recall when that term was last used. We have provided the evidence as per your request so we would appreciate you updating the page as you said you would. We Are Butlins 09:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearebutlins (talk • contribs)
That's right, for the 80s, 90's and some of the 00's the "Butlins" was dropped and they were re-branded as "Worlds" to get away from the use of "Butlins Camps" it didn't stop the media, and the General populace from referring to them as Camps because that was (and still is) the correct term to use. "Resorts" was a term brought in by Bourne Leisure some time between 2000 and (I presume 2005) In the context of the article "Camps is still the correct term to use when discussing the whole history of each site. Colloquially the British have always in the past used the term "Camp" to refer to such sites within the UK and "Resort" to describe the type of sites found abroad. Which was something I tried to address using your Google statistics, The numbers I gave were for Local Searches not global (which would unfairly bias the results as Globally "Camp" is not used at all - only locally). The Google statistics also show that nearly everyone looking for your facilities last month searched for "Butlins" and did not reveal whether they believed they should be called Camps or Resorts.. You should also note Seaside resort which details the difference between resort and a camp in this context. The resort would refer to the Seaside Town built around tourism and the "Holiday Camp", "Holiday Village", or "Holiday Park" would be a residential facility within that resort. So Minehead is a Resort, Butlins Minehead is a Camp. Your corporate branding does not alter this fact. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The article, including the lead section, contains a fair mix of the alternative terms and I do not see any need to change it. We are not here to promote your corporate brand.--Charles (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how by changing one word "Camp" to "Resort" is promoting our Corporate Brand? We Are Butlins 15:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearebutlins (talk • contribs)
We are simply asking for the three existing Resorts to be called what they have been known for many years, "Resorts" not "Camps". You keep missing this point and instead remain focused on your incorrect interpretation of what we are asking for. I urge you to please take the personalisation out of this debate and do the right thing by updating our 3 Resorts with the correct term. We Are Butlins 09:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added byWearebutlins (talk • contribs)
Sounds a reasonable request. I've made the changes. Daicaregos (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
That seems a markedly premature decision by Daicaregos as this discussion has only been open for four days. At least ten days should be allowed for any other editors who may wish to contribute. There is as yet no consensus for the change.
Daicaregos may not have checked the history to see that on 24 February Wearebutlins changed every instance of "camp" in the entire article, including the historic stuff about camps that did not survive long enough to become "resorts". This was done again twice on 10 March, with edit summaries suggesting, if not threatening, legal action. On 11 February 2009 Wearebutlins made extensive deletions and other changes to the article, entirely removing Barry Island Camp and Majestic Holidays. At that time the words "centre" and "site" were used to replace camp in many instances. Given this editing history it is hardly surprising if some of us are not "focussed" on only changing camp to resort in three places. I am reverting it pending closure of this discussion.--Charles (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I notice there's a few "resorts" still in there don't know which edit (if any) they've been left from. Although my comments so far have been direct responses to Wearebutlins there are some general points I'd like to add. Daicaregos and I did a lot of work on the Barry Island (Holiday Camp) article and agreed that (Holiday Camp) was the appropriate neutral title for a camp that changed name during it's lifetime - I maintained this when I wrote Heads of Ayr (Holiday Camp). Other Wikipedia policies include "What was it's name when it became noteable?" - Holiday Camp, Widely accepted name - "Which name has more hits in Google Books (as opposed to Web search which would include all Butlins corporate pages/travel agent pages)?" In this case Camp leads Resort 704 to 371. it also says "Context is important" we cannot use resort when talking about construction of the camp, or 80's and 90's refurbishments where the term was not used - since this makes up the majority of the information for the three locations camp would still have priority in that section. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the present mix of terms is pretty fair. No need to purge every resort.--Charles (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree and wasn't suggesting otherwise, but was pointing out that some out of context resorts had slipped in (the renaming of camps to worlds for instance, where resorts shouldn't be mentioned.) It would be nice to find a citable source showing when the change occured (99 refurb, 00 sale, 05 refurb, etc) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Further to last checking through Butlins own Website on their public history and even internal documents like [1] the word Resort doesn't become used until 2003 and even during the 1999 refurbishment they refer to their sites as "Camps" (although in their public history pages they have retconned Camp to "centre" even in the early days - but then they also talk about the formation of Butlins (Behamas) Ltd (sic) so accuracy isn't a strong point [2]) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
For the record, since I took over the wearebutlins account on wiki I have not removed any copy of any kind! I replaced the word "Resort" to Camps" where ever it was found because this is an incorrect term. People call a Vacuum a Hoover but I'm sure other Vacumm Brands would not wish for their product to be called Hoover. There are many other incorrect examples of terms and all we at Butlins wish for is to correct this term. The twisting of numbers and false accusation of a threat is totally unwarranted and has no place in this debate. We wish to clearly state that we stronlgy feel the change of term from "Camp/s" to "Resort/s" as a min and idealy on all references be used on our existing three Resorts. If this debate can not reach some common ground then we wish to pass the matter over to a higher level for resolutiuon. For us after myself that is our Legal Dept I assumed that would be case for Wiki hence my asking for a contact address, that request is not a threat, it is a request for an address to seek a resolution to this matter and now I wish to also include the manner in which this debate is being handled. This editing proccess is clearly not working for some people have taken things too personal so with the greates resepct we again request the correct name and contact details to escalate this matter to the next level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearebutlins (talk • contribs) 10:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no legal department Editorial Board or Higher authority in the sense you are looking for and no Contact for any WP:Contact_us. Wikipedia is entirely hosted and run from Florida, USA so any legal issues would have to be resolved under U.S. State/Federal law. There is a formal dispute resolution process which we are already engaged in the first step of, to escalate this edit to a further step of the process please review the process at WP:DR 10:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart.Jamieson (talk • contribs)
I have made numerous changes to the article over the last few days in an effort to add more detailed information where needed, use more references, update the existing information and make sure it more accurately reflects Butlins past and present. As part of this effort I have carefully considered the above arguments and I have made use of the word "resort" where I believe it is more appropriate than "camp", especially in reference to Butlins as it is today. I have left the word "camp" where it refers to historical facts as I believe that is the appropriate term in that context, for the same reasons Stuart has argued previously. I have also added commentary in the introduction and in the list of locations that states that the sites have been known by various names (Holiday camp, holiday centre, holiday village, and more recently as resorts). Hopefully that explains the correct terminology as well as explaining previous terminology used. The introduction sitll says that Butlin's operates holiday camps, but then states that they are currently marketed as resorts. I believe this is accurate and fair to all parties and more importantly provides readers with the correct facts and terminology of both the past and present. I hope wearebutlins would largely agree that this is a better quality article now than it was.Pushbutton (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
We are not here to be fair to all parties but to write a balanced article based on reliable sources. Wearebutlins is a corporate account which has previously tried to turn the article into a publicity brochure. That account should really have been deleted and does not get an input here.--Charles (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I did not make these changes to promote Bourne Leisures concept of Butlin's but to reflect a balanced view of how the Butlin's sites are now and were in the past (including past and present terminology used). I have left the word "camp" in place in a lot of instances where I believe it is more appropriate but changed it to "resort" where it refers to current sites and recent events.Pushbutton (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Social impact

I am disappointed that none of the article(s) on Butlins discuss the significant social impact these camps had on British society. They have also been featured in films and other pop cultural artifacts. Anyone up for this?Jakking (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a few cultural references, but I think there's room in the article for perhaps 3 or 4 more just to fully emphasise how much of a social impact Butlin's has had. If I find suitable references I'll add them but if anyone else find such references before me please do soPushbutton (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In one of my numerous recent modifications to the article "Butlins" I uploaded the 2011 Butlin's logo to replace the one that was currently displayed at the top of the article.

I did this to reflect the fact that Butlin's is reintroducing the original logo for 2011, along with the additional line underneath it stating "Celebrating 75 years - 1936 - 2011".

I noticed that someone has removed my updated logo and reverted it back to the 2010 logo that was there previously.

I have changed it back but wanted to discuss here whether it is felt that the 2010 or 2011 version is more appropriate. It could be argued that it is not yet 2011 so we should wait until then to change the logo. It could also be argued that Butlin's has not yet changed the logo on its own website. However I still feel it is appropriate to use the 2011 logo now rather than waiting for several reasons.

Firstly because Butlins are already using it in all communications on several public sites and forums such as facebook, twitter, wearebutlins.com (their own blog site), butlinsmemories.com, and bygonebutlins.com.

Also because the version of the 2010 logo that was previously used on wikipedia is no entirely accurate as it has no "dot" above the "I".

Therefore I have changed it back to the 2011 logo, which is very similar to the original Butlin's logo from 1936, and is used by the Butlin's company to promote the fact that the company is 75 years old in 2011.Pushbutton (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Having seen the thread at butlinsmemories where the new logo was unveiled, I'm happy with the change (particularly since I prefer the 1936 logo stylistically)
Since the word Butlins is just Text (in most cases). In the long term I'd favour finding a GPL font that is as close a match as possible to the one that Butlins use and create a completely GPL image. The closest commercial font I can find to the 2010 logo is 18 Antique Olive Nord Italic Scal 97009 with only the t being wrong, Similarly with the 1936/2011 logo the font is closest to to Freestyle Script without the stylised B and a circle dot on the i instead of an oval. Hopefully GPL equivalents of these commercial fonts can be found elsewhere.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I have tried typing "Butlin's" in freestyle script and I agree it is vaguely similar to the actual logo, but I do not think it is close enough to accurately refrect the Butlin's brand in a way that is recognisable. Simulating the 2010 logo is probably somewhat easier since it is less stylised. However I agree that the 2011 logo is more appropriate, especially as it not only reflects Butlin's current branding (which is slowly being introduced between now and 2011) but also reflects the historical branding and the wikipedia article is largely about Butlin's history.Pushbutton (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Please have regard to WP:Recentism.--Charles (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure that WP:Recentism applies since this logo or a variation on it was used from 1936-1986 with a broadly similar font used right up until 1999. If anything this has more historical perspective than the 2010 one. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of the 75th anniversity logo that appeared and other recent changes to the article.--Charles (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of the 75th anniversity logo as well, Although the 75 years bit along the bottom is recent, the Logo above it is close enough to the 1936 one to give a whole history perspective. I do disagree with some of the other changes to recent terminology (as I've stated before) however I now believe a WP:NPOV is simply to remove the Adjective in many cases including secion headings and just leave it at "Minhead", "Skegness", or "Bognor Regis". Things like the recent facilities are being put in context as each camp is spun off into it's own article hopefully with a wider historical perspective that is appropriate there but would unbalance this article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that the original logo, perhaps without the "celebrating 75 years 1936-2011" bit under it, would be more appropriate if we want to avoid "recentism". It certainly has a longer term perspective than the one we have been referring to as the 2010 logo, which has only been in use since 1999. However I am not going to keep changing it back. I'll leave that to someone else now as I have done everything I can to make the butlins article as accurate and balanced as I can.Pushbutton (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Since the logo I uploaded has been reinstated, I have uploaded a new version of it that does not include the tagline "celebrating 75 years 1936-2011" as this drew allegations that I was a "sockpuppet" of butlins and trying to promote the business. Without the tagline this should avoid such suspicions. Also by not mentioning the 75th anniversary event it avoids "recentism" which somebody raised as an issue. I am not employed or contracted by Butlins and only contribute to this article because I have personal knowledge of the company as a customer and observer and want to make accurate and balanced information publicly available.Pushbutton (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the "Sockpuppet" issue has been sorted out, there was some concern that you started posting very shortly after wearebutlins stopped and were making edits that appeared to give undue precedence to recent history - which wearebutlins was trying to do for commercial rather than encyclopaedic reasons. Of course these concerns whilst well meaning are quickly cleared up when looking at your past contributions which included a lot of good 80s-00s information some of which has unfortunately disappeared from the current version of the article.
On the subject of the image, the 2010 version looks to be taken from the "Star" Logo where the Star forms the dot of the i and it's trail forms a circle around the word Butlins. Removing the star has led to the logo looking wrong. This should either be replaced with the circle dot on the i or one of the Handwritten Logos (different variations were issued in at least the 30's, 70's, 80's, 10's if not more frequently)
Secondly the upload license can be changed, it would have to apply if WP was hosted in the UK but it's not and in the U.S. the Word "Butlins" rendered in any typeface cannot be copyrighted per Wikipedia:Public_domain#Fonts so if the image we use here is just a Stylised "Butlins" i.e; no Star dot on the i or 75th anniversary banner we can license it under {{PD-textlogo}} which a genuine free use license and much better for the project. Extending this License we can upload historical logos which can be applied to the infoboxes of camps which closed when a particular logo was in use. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Apostrophe or not Apostrophe

O.K. In the last fortnight the page has been moved twice, I wouldn't mind but we have a whole load of Sub-Pages from Talk Page Archives and Index to the informal project guide that should be moved as well and hasn't been. The first move was on the basis that the Apostrophe has been added to the textmark, the latest has been on the basis that the common name has no apostrophe. I'd like to settle on a decision so that we can finalize these positions.

IMHO the Apostrophe existed until the end of the "Holiday Worlds" era [3] That was at least 1936 until 1999 (though it may have been earlier in relation to Butlin's Funfairs. In contrast the non-apostrophe logo lasted at most 10years. Most reliable secondary sources from prior to 1999 which we should be citing in the article use the Apostrophe including "Goodnight Campers", " The Billy Butlin story", "A History of Butlin's Railways", "Butlin's Filey: Thanks for the memories" Even today reliable media coverage commonly uses the Apostrophe [4], and google returns over 200,000 more hits with the apostrophe, yes the current Brochure uses a mix of no apostrophe in the text and apostrophe in the logo but that isn't enough to consider it WP:Commonname. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME, which I believe takes precedence in such cases, would dictate that the article should be called "Butlins" as that is the name the company uses today in nearly all of its documentation - not just their brochures and legal names, but also in other resources they produce such as this. The editor who moved the article a while back, Ajuk, is well known for his apostrophe fixation and has made quite a nuisance of himself in Bristol-related articles - nearly all of which have been reverted. --Simple Bob (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Butlin's have recently reinstated the apostrophe so I expect it has not yet worked through to all their literature.--Charles (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The student Pack was originally published in 1999 with updates in 2005 and still refers to their sites as "Camps" which Butlins Management have tried to change on here to "Resorts". WP:COMMONNAME disagrees with your above position and specifically saysCommon usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name
it also says
if an organization changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change. reasonable consideration does not guarantee accepting the change.
The problem is that there are more reliable sources from Pre-1999 than there are from Post-1999 in a google books search there are almost 10 times more hits for Apostrophe than without. Accurate hits from google web search are difficult to get because google is literally overrun with marketing and sales sites which are not reliable sources.
A Bit of searching threw up this though [5] it looks possible that Bourne can't use the apostrophe in referring to the organisation because the apostrophised name went to Hard Rock not Bourne when Rank was broken up. Either way we are not limited in such a way and in the historical perspective it makes sense for us to consider that the Apostrophe is common. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Naming convention for Butlins camps past and present

There is currently a debate under way at Talk:Minehead (holiday camp) about the use of the naming convention "foo (holiday camp)" where foo is the geographical location of the camp Minehead, Bognor Regis, etc. All relevant input is welcomed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

After the above debate closed, the closing Admin showed no preference of naming for those camps that were renamed after leaving Butlin's hands. Having spoken to him privately he suggested a second Requested Move for these Camps. I've ignored Clacton because the Atlas Park name did not last long enough to be notable, however Ayr, Pwllheli, Barry, and Mosney require debating. I've opened the discussion at The Pwllheli Talkpage. All input welcome. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Assessment and Project

I've just assessed the skegness site, and was surprised it was not included in the England wikiproject, so I addded it. I also came here to find only an unassessed Hertffordshire banner. I've added the UKproject, because I think it very relevant, but can't see it can be assessed higher than a C as large sections of the article are without any form of independent citation. I don't think any of the info is wrong, but Wikipedia:Verifiability.

I have flagged the History and Facilities sections in particular. The lists are unreferenced, but I don't normally care about that as the individual pages they link to are clear enough. It would be nice to be able to verify what is said about the present state of the sites, but while some editors would flag them all I would not.

I suspect that the History section could be entirely referenced from the Butlins site, but Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source requires 3rd-party confirmation, or independence.

I like this article, and would like to think that it could be a B or even a GA, but it won't pass such appraisal as it stands. Which is a shame, Butlins was an important feature of the midle-to-late 20th century. Maybe the projects can help?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


The Billy Butlin Article has a comprehensive history of the early history of the chain sourced to 3rd party reliable sources so that can be adapted for here the problem is in getting any depth of coverage between 1980 (possbibly earlier, 1970?) and 2000. Coverage has picked up again covering the past 13 years so that shouldn't be a problem to source.


I think the UK banner is more appropriate than the Hertford one which only seems in place because it's headquarters is currently there - Lincolnshire would appear to be a more appropriate project to associate with given as a holiday empire is started there. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Butlin%27s/Archive_1&oldid=1200033672"