Talk:Poole

Text and/or other creative content from County Gates was merged into Poole on 19 February 2023 after being nominated for deletion. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Poole has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 7, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
October 8, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Good article

UK geography High‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Dorset Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dorset, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics connected with Dorset. If you would like to participate, you can visit the WikiProject Dorset project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.DorsetWikipedia:WikiProject DorsetTemplate:WikiProject DorsetDorset articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

John Bastard 1746 House[edit]

John Bastard's date of birth (1817) the reference to him designing a house built in 1746 and the fact that he lived in Newcastle Upon Tyne lead me to think that this link is to a different person of the same name and that the link should be removed.

The link was almost cerainly refering to John Bastard - which is why I am here - to see if their are any natives of Poole here who could find a photograph of Sir Peter Thompson's 1746 town house designed by John Bastard for the Bastard brothers page. I think it may today be called poole College. Thanks Giano 09:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have lots of photos of all the old buildings in Poole. I may have one of the house but dont realise it, can you describe it? and I can upload if I have it. LordHarris 17:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the problem I don't know what it looks like, I'm hundreds of miles from Poole, and can't find a picture on the internet either, but it is mentioned on Poole's tourist site (The town centre has many of the old buildings put up by the wealthy merchants, such as the 1761 market house and Sir Peter Thompson's 1746 town house designed by John Bastard), but only vaguely - it would be great if you do have something. Pevsner describes it as poole's finest house and says it is sited north of New orchard Giano 18:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I managed to find the street the house is in (Market Street) which is northwest of Old Orchard street, but actually south of new orchard street. I found this when I stumbled across this article -

Lulworth Castle. It details the brothers extensive developments of Lulworth castle, which isnt mentioned on the brothers article either (if you cant access the article I can always email it to you). It cites the house in market street but alas no photo. Market street itself is quite small and theres only perhaps half a dozen buildings in it including a pub and a few new buildings. There is one building however, most likely the Bastard building on the right of the photo (though I cant say for sure). Sorry couldnt be of more help. LordHarris 19:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is great, the work at Lulworth Castle is briefly mentioned on the page, but I don't have access to Justor, so if you could wiki-mail that to me it would be great. Regarding your foto, my guess is that the building on the extreme right, is the one I am after, as it fits with Pevsner's description - but that would be own research (sod!) we need some proof - that is the one - any ideas? I really appreciate your interest here Giano 20:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had an idea and checked the national database of listed buildings at English heritage. http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/search/details.aspx?pid=2&id=412527 - is the town house. Its in Market Street but just behind where I was standing when I took the above photo. I havent got one of it myself but I will try and take one next time Im near there. The website has a photo (but its copyrighted) and it has some detail on the house and Bastards/Thomspon. At least you know where and what it looks like!LordHarris 20:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poole Harbour[edit]

>> Poole Harbour (said to be the second largest natural harbour in the world after Sydney) Doesn't something like this need a reference? I've also heard Halifax, NS referred to as 'the second-largest natural harbour in the world', and a quick looksee on the 'net brings http://experts.about.com/e/n/na/Natural_harbor.htm with a list of a goodly number of claimants. --Jadawin 13:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Yes, My late father always disputed this claim too, citing Sydney Harbour as being a much larger rival for 2nd place. Apparently (though it is only hearsay), this status was claimed not on the basis of area, but rather, of the length of the shoreline; given the convoluted nature of the Poole Harbour shore, that sort of begins then to make sense — but I still think it is really marketing hype! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty19 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Gross Value Added[edit]

I removed the RGVA stuff because I have no idea what it means or how it improves the article for the reader. It has been put back in by someone else. Does anyone know what this stuff means? If they do, how can the material be made understandable to a reader in a far-off country. I believe the adder of RGWA is Anwar sadaat so I have put the following message on his talk page.

Anwar, some material you have added to many articles is puzzling me. I'm talking about the "Regional Gross Value Added" stuff. I'm an intelligent person (university degree) and I have absolutely no idea what that stuff means. It does not seem to me that it adds anything to the articles. In fact I think the opposite, it makes the reader stop and think "what ever is this!". Sorry, nothing against you, but I just can't see why the material is there. Can I remove it from any article I see it in or do you want it put to a vote? Humble apologies if you are not the person who added the material. - Adrian Pingstone 08:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South West Coast Path[edit]

The South West Coast Path starts at Poole Harbour, and there has been a proposal made that its article should be rewritten. At present it is largely long lists of towns, villages, and places of interest. If you can help turn these lists into prose, could you join in at Talk:South West Coast Path. Thanks. Geof Sheppard 13:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion to culture section[edit]

I think that the article could benefit from details of events on Poole Quay such as the car nights and fireworks. They attract several thousand people and are a big event during the summer for Poole. Maybe also add other events such as the market in the town? Thoughts? Also I think the population section should be merged with the demography section? The article is on its way to FA! Good work. LordHarris 09:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes good ideas. I have removed the population section and created a new population table in the demography section. Other cultural events that could be added are Harry Paye charity fun day on the quay and the 'Beating of the Bounds'. BarretBonden (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

I have rewritten the history section, adding a few details that were missing such as Poole’s role in the Civil War and the importance of the Newfoundland trade, plus I’ve added a couple of images and extra references. Hopefully it is an improvement, although it might be a bit too long and may need some more editing to get it to good article standards. BarretBonden (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This article has been promoted to GA status. An archive of the review can be found at Talk:Poole/GA1. -epicAdam (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done guys - a great article. :) --Jza84 | Talk 11:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Education[edit]

The education section currently says there are 8 middle schools, but indicates that they are all 8-12 middles. Isn't Broadstone a 9-13 middle? I'd presume, therefore, that there is at least one 4-9 First School. Could someone locally clarify the point? Tafkam (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The age ranges are just examples but I don‘t think its necessary for them to be included. I'll remove them from the section and modify the List of schools in Poole to include more detail about pupil ages. BarretBonden (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poole[edit]

Hello, just to ask, what are you current plans for the Poole article. Have you considered nominating Poole for WP:Featured Article status yet? If not what do you think needs improving or expanding? Perhaps I can assist you? LordHarris 16:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I considered nominating the article for FA shortly after it had been peer reviewed, but I felt that the prose needed a thorough copy edit first. I wasn't able to find anyone available to do this though so I've stopped working on the article for now. I was considering summarising the 'Landmarks' section, but any additional input and improvements to the article would be good. BarretBonden (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same, I certainly think that in most places it comes up to FA standard. Additionally, might we be able to make Dorset a Good/Featured Topic eventually? It certainly has a number of great articles (Dorset itself, Poole, Weymouth, Portland). Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your praise of the article. I would love to get this to FA and I may get round to working on this page again in the near future, but FAC is tough and I don't really have the motivation to go through the process right now. What articles would a Good/Featured topic for Dorset involve? Just the major towns of the county? Unfortunately, looking at Dorset, I'm pretty sure it would fail a FAR in the state it is in at the moment. BarretBonden (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually being the optimum word there. Naturally a lot further work needs to take place before that momumental moment! Still it's off to a reasonable start, and I endeavour to promote Bournemouth to a GA alongside this one. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs to be updated as the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council came into being on April 1st 2019. There is currently only reference to the old unitary authority which now no longer exists. I am currently trying to correctly word a paragraph to replace the mention of the old Council. Paulw99 (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the initial paragraph but there is additional work I need to do to add more relevant information about Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council details to this listing about Poole. I am working on the required information to confirm that which I will include and hope to add more later this week. Paulw99 (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transport[edit]

I've taken the following paragraph out of the transport section because the only source given (http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/Library/PDF/Residents/Local_TRansport_Plan/LTP2_Pt2.pdf) does not appear to contain most of the information given. I've not found any alternative sources yet, but in the meantime if anyone else does, please add this back to the article. Barret (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite having a good network of dual carriageway standard road serving the town centre and Canford Heath areas, Poole suffers from a missing strategic link with the rest of the region's road network. For decades, a strip of land running from the Alderney Roundabout (at the current end of the Canford Way dual carriageway) has been reserved through the Bourne Valley to the Boundary Road Roundabout near the University. There is also land reserved to link Canford Way to the current terminus of the A338 Wessex Way at Bournemouth West Roundabout. These projects are known as the 'Wallisdown Relief Road' and 'Branksome Relief Road' respectively. In the 1980s and 1990s, Dorset County and Bournemouth Borough Council made several attempts to construct the link roads, modifying the designs several times to minimise the projected environmental damage, but they were eventually discarded from the local transport plans in 1997, against the wishes of Bournemouth Borough Council. In its LTP 2006-2011 (Local Transport Plan) , Bournemouth Borough Council notes that the existing primary route connecting Poole to Bournemouth (Wallisdown Road A3049) is so badly congested that bus companies are finding it impossible to keep to their timetables. The LTTP (Long Term Transport Plan 2011-2026) for the conurbation acknowledges that either one of the missing relief corridors, or hugely costly on-line road widening of Wallisdown Road, will be 'unavoidable' if the Council is to maintain fluidity on the public transport network and support Poole's economy beyond the immediate locality.

Branksome a little known suburb of Poole, Dorset[edit]

We live in Branksome West, right on the border of Parkstone on the main Ashley Road, Poole, Dorset. For some time now we have been trying to find out some local history of our immediate area. We have visited the local museum and library but there are very few photographs and recorded history about the area and wondered if there was anyone out there who could add to what we have found out so far. Branksome Pottery, in my opinion the finest bone china pottery I have ever seen, was once based Where the New John Lewis at Home development is, right by the Pottery junction roundabout and the clay was dug from large pits sited atthe now industrial site just of Alder Road opposite Branksome Recreation grounds. I can not personally varify this location as very little is known about this area. but I do know that the clay for the Branksome China, also Came from Clay pits and Quarries, in Wareham and Poole. See Blue Poole at Furzebrook near Wareham. Clay was excavated from these pits and transported across Wareham Heath by rail and loaded onto barges at Swanage. Getting back to Branksome the area. There seems to be a very large wall running along Poole Road in the facinity of St. Aldheims Church and continuing along the road in the direction of Westbourne. As I understand it from local information provided by neighbours, this wall is the only remaining part of Parkstone Villa, A Huge Edwardian Mansion House, which had extensive grounds and also site of the local "Work House."

Davis Road, just off the Ashley Road, before Pottery Junction is a quiet residential road with similar buildings all built around 1928. Originally, the area was an orchard and farmland. During a recent build we were astonished to find that the top soil in this area is only about 12 inches deep and that beneath the top soil is a huge and very deep seam of sand. This sand is of many layers including a rather thick band of blackened earth/sand which indicates that the area must have been subjected to a terrible fire in its recent history. The topography of the area, is one of heathland with pine and scrub bushes with Canford Heath looking like the nearest match as it may possibly have done before this area was developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hivehunter (talk • contribs) 17:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Towns Section[edit]

It is difficult to find the reference to Poole's Twin Town as it now, many local towns do have a separate twinning section and is the length of the section really the prime factor in deciding if it deserves a section to itself?Phil Whiston (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's a consensus about where to place the twinning info. There's nothing in WP:UKTOWNS apart from this brief discussion on the talk page where opinion is divided. My opinion is that it should remain in the prose of the article rather than an additional section containing just a short sentence and a single bullet list. I wasn't sure where to place twinning information when I took the article to Good Article nomination but I think I used featured articles such as Isle of Portland, Weymouth, Dorset and Oldham as a guide. Barret (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Founded Date[edit]

I believe that the date "1st April 1997" is incorrect, as I was born in Poole before 1997. Feel free to delete this section after the wikipedia article has been edited. However I do not know when it was. This edit just a suggested improvement. FranktheTank (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "Founded" date refers to when the Borough of Poole became a Unitary Authority, and not to the creation of the Borough itself, though I agree the presentation of this information in the infobox is open to misinterpretation, particularly if readers haven't read the text first. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It almost certainly refers to the date Poole became a UA as PCW says. I agree however, that this isn't the date it was 'founded' and I would be in favour of changing it. I think it would be polite to get Barret opinion first though as he has put a lot of effort into the article. It would be worth looking at the infoboxes of other UAs too.--Ykraps (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wikipedia and I don't really know how to contact users, so hopefully Barret will see this himself. And change it or modify it to make it more clear if need be. Apart from this, there's nothing else confusing or incorrect.FranktheTank (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word "founded" is piped to Local Government Commission for England (1992) but I agree it's a bit misleading. I don't think it's essential to have date of the formation of the unitary authority in the infobox so I have no objections if it's removed. Barret (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely missed the pipe link. I have removed date for now as it is clearly causing some confusion but if consensus is to replace it, I'm quite happy to go along with that. Another option would be to simply change the title to 'Unitary Authority'. Any thoughts on that? I tried to find a founded date but all sources agree with the article that it was sometime between 1086 and the twelfth century.--Ykraps (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Unitary Authority' would make sense, Southampton also has a 'settled' date in the infobox c. AD43 in that case. c. 1086 could be appropriate for Poole.Phil Whiston (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

etymology[edit]

it is said 'the town's name derives from a corruption of the Celtic word bol and the Old English word pool', but the link is dead, and I in fact found the source [1]. There is nothing about Celtic and the Old English is pōl.--淺藍雪 (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is the Old English word "pōl" comes from the Celtic word "bol"? --Htmlzycq (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Poole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Poole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130617223748/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/Partner/organisation/areapartnerdetails.asp?41 to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/Partner/organisation/areapartnerdetails.asp?41

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Poole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poole & Wight[edit]

I'm trying to find out (for a different article) something, anything, about an engineering company ca. 1900 called Poole & Wight. As Poole is not that far from the Isle of Wight there's a possibility it refers to location rather than Messrs. Poole and Wight. Any clues? Doug butler (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Poole. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Km first?[edit]

Why are all the distances in km first and then miles? Everyone in the UK uses miles as the primary unit of distance, so it should be miles first then km. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Poole. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Poole. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Poole. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E140005851
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080716180120/http://www.poolequay.com/cruises.html to http://www.poolequay.com/cruises.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105221203/http://www.okdinghy.co.uk/okreslt.html to http://www.okdinghy.co.uk/okreslt.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415073409/http://www.southern-football-league.co.uk/directory/south-and-west.asp?section=club-directory to http://www.southern-football-league.co.uk/directory/south-and-west.asp?section=club-directory
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.winchelsea.net/visiting/winchelsea_history_pt14.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bsolive.com/orchestra/history/historydetail.htm?decadeid=57587

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need to include information about new Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council[edit]

As of April 1st, 2019 the new Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council otherwise known as the BCP Council come into being.

We will need to add details about the new Council as it becomes clearer where we can find details.

Currently the three websites from the three former councils that now make up the new Council are still in use, no date is known when these sites will merge. Paulw99 (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will add this same message to the old Bournemouth and Christchurch council listings too. Paulw99 (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of a standard Wikimedia Commons style Coat of Arms[edit]

Both here and on the Coat of arms of Poole page my attempts to use File:Arms_of_Poole.svg as the free to use Wikimedia emblazonment of the coat of arms of Poole have been consistently undone and removed on the grounds that the dolphin in my emblazonment is incorrect because since 1976 it has been depicted naturalistically. However this is a misunderstanding of the functions of heraldry - the section of the blazon relevant to the dolphin still reads "a Dolphin naiant embowed Argent langued Gules", which gives no instruction on the depiction of the dolphin. John Brooke-Little, in the 1973 edition of Boutell's Heraldry clearly states that the depiction of elements in arms is to a great extent "a matter for the artist to decide". My version of the Poole arms, which are importantly free to use as Wikimedia assets, are absolutely correct to the blazon. It is an incorrect application of heraldry to insist that what has for a time been standard practice in the emblazoning of a coat of arms (such as the naturalistic dolphin seen since 1976) is a necessary. In the spirit of the Wikimedia heraldry project my version of the arms should be kept as the primary one, and the emblazonment used by the former council should be a separate image in the article. ET72 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2022 (GMT)

Sorry to see you're having this trouble, ET72. You've done the right thing bringing it to the talk page. Please bear in mind the 3 revert rule though. If this anonymous editor continues to revert without engaging here, I'd suggest not immediately reverting them again, but instead to try leaving a note on their talk page encouraging them to engage here (I have already done this, but it looks like they do not have a static IP, so they might not see it), and giving them a couple of days to do so. If they still fail to engage here, or continue to dispute the edit, then there are options for escalating this:

Alert administrators, who can adjudicate disputes and block a disruptive editor who does not engage
Notify relevant Wikiprojects -- I'd suggest maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology or Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography -- who may have experts that can add relevant information or feedback in a dispute.

Thanks! -Joe D (t)

File is nominated for deletion:

This has never been the arms of Poole. Until 1976 the arms showed an heraldic dolphin. In 1976 the supporters were added and the dolphin was shown as a normal dolphin. This image thus is a mixture of 2 official grants. The city never used the heraldic dolphin, nor do the current town Trustees. They all use a normal dolphin

As the blason states 'dolphin' technically an heraldic dolphin could be correct, however the official image with the grant shows a normal dolphin and that thus overrides the uncertainty of the blason. NO images exist with the full arms with an heraldic dolphin.

See for the correct arms:

http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/dorset_1974to2019.html
https://www.facebook.com/fopcrem/photos/a.114363617008850/161679242277287/
https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=303
http://jeffshea.org/photos/uk-poole-prov-coat-of-arms-2009-img-4322/
http://www.pooletrail.com/en/page/3326
https://www.heraldry-wiki.com/heraldrywiki/wiki/Poole — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A466:F20E:1:9081:BE8:D3E2:6431 (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While your arguments are heraldically flawed and obsessed not with the blazon but with emblazonments of arms, I have made a version featuring a naturalistic dolphin, which seems easier than trying to explain the functions of the heraldic blazon to pedants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ET72 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]