Jump to content

Talk:Christchurch, Dorset

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleChristchurch, Dorset 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
DateProcessResult
July 15, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
February 15, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Query

[edit]

Any info on "eam" for "(two) rivers" in Old English, and cognates in other languages? I'm intrigued. Xipirho (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I do not know. I learned a new word today though! cognate --Senra (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick look at OE to English translator suggests eÁm Strong Masculine Noun eÁm m an eam uncle chiefly on the mother's side avunculu. --Senra (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... and a look at Oxford reference online premium via my local library reveals

[Christchurch]... was known formerly as Twynam ‘Place between the Rivers’. It was subsequently renamed Christecerce ‘Church of Christ’ from the Old English Crist and cirice ‘church’

Everett-Heath, John (2010). "Christchurch Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names". Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Cambridgeshire Libraries. Retrieved 25 June 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) --Senra (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that Thomas Hardy is ignored having based one of the greatest Victorian Novels, Jude the Obscure, partly in Christchurch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.85.234 (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Quomps - apology

[edit]

I remembered this as The Quomps, but then found it on a map and misread it as The Quomp. I have now used a magnifying glass. (O.S. Outdoor Leisure series map No. 22, New Forest.)) Apologies for this lapse from the standard I aim at.

While writing, is there any way that the Article Assessment can be dated on this page? I found the History page shows it as November 2007, and some of the issues on the assessment may now have been covered. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:To do,WikiProject Dorset

Comments

[edit]

This is not a review. Just some comments from an interested editor. I have only been a wikipedia editor for 3 weeks so take what I am about to say accordingly. In any event, my comments should be taken constructively as intended.

  1. Not sure why you have not used {{infobox UK place ...}} same as Bournemouth, Poole for example.
  2. WP:Lead seems very short. Compare with Little Thetford, Bournemouth, Poole etc.
  3. There is excellent detailed prose throughout. However, the sections do not follow the structure outlined in "How to write about settlements."
  4. History. It seems long. Whilst wikipedia does not like arranging history into sub-sections according to century, the style-guide does suggest subheadings. In any case, my view is your history needs sub-dividing to make it easier to read. Certainly put the population figures in a section of its own (demography) as per How to write about settlements.
  5. The gallery will be questioned. Wikipedia seems to prefer images throughout the article only. I have seen many exceptions (cf. Ely, Cambridgeshire) though. Anyway, see Image galleries
  6. Consider transport as a section of its own as per How to write about settlements
  7. consider {{Geographic location ...}} in the geography section to place Christchurch in relation to other places in Dorset.
  8. consider {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} in references to make references go to three columns (or less) automatically (except on IE browsers) but get Firefox anyway :). Also consider separating notes and references using tagged references. See Little Thetford for an example. Basically, the notes contain brief details plus page numbers which are referenced to the work (book, journal etc) preventing long lists of almost the same text in reference list
  9. consider a See also section

Now I am going to be honest here. I have not read the prose; checked the references; checked the wikilinks; checked images; or checked anything I have not mentioned above (erm, yet!). If the above helps great. If not, feel free to say so on my talk page. And remember, I have only been a wikipedian for three weeks.

--Senra (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had a crack at the lead - draft here.
--Senra (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an incorporated place, this article should use {{Infobox settlement}} as it has many more available fields for statistics and codes. It is used on the Poole article and could be copied and adapted from there. MRSC (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi germany

[edit]

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)[reply]

No, you're quite right, I just thought it read better. I made the link go to Nazi Germany but that was probably insufficient. I will have another look at it. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second review

[edit]

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)[reply]

Airfield and historical districts

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I notice that the Bournemouth historical districts are all separate articles (see Category:Geography of Bournemouth) and it includes Wick and Holdenhurst. But they are tucked away in the Category:Geography of Bournemouth category. The Christchurch districts are tucked away in the Category:Districts of Christchurch, Dorset category which is itself a subcategory of Category:Geography of Christchurch, Dorset.

So the issue is not whether the Christchurch districts i have listed above should be separate articles (yes they should although Wick has already been done), but if there should be a short section in this article listing the districts to give them more prominence. The same point applies to the Bournemouth article as well.

So articles on Iford, Purewell, Somerford, Stanpit and Tuckton remain to be done and maybe Friars Cliff.--Penbat (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
We may as well have a Christchurch template as per Oldham#Divisions and suburbs.--Penbat (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Christchurch Castle

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

New Stanpit stub article

[edit]

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

User:Penbat/template:Christchurch, Dorset

[edit]

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)[reply]

I've added some stuff to the template but I see you already know this. You've included Iford and Tuckton which were ceded to Bmth in 1931 and 1895 respectively. If we're including historic districts, should we also include Wick, Hengistbury Head, Pokesdown, Holdenhurst, Holmsley? Pending further investigation, what about Throop, Walkford, Bransgore, Avon? (actually I think Avon was always in Ringwood). You could also add Holmsley to the list of railway stations as this was the original Christchurch stop (known as Christchurch Road).--Ykraps (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Not sure about Verwood. As far as I know it is East Dorset now but was historically part of Cranborne.--Ykraps (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Template:Christchurch, Dorset now created.--Penbat (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not going to happen. Ucucha 12:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Christchurch, Dorset → Christchurch — As this is the English section of the encyclopedia, I would have thought that this page should be the prime topic. Homan's Copse (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Are you kidding. This is the English language version of Wiki not English version. Christchurch NZ is better known internationally and much bigger and a capital and im sure the NZ boys would object anyway. --Penbat (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Even though I am from Christchurch, Dorset; if I put Christchurch into WP:Search, I would expect to be taken to Christchurch NZ. If you are proposing to change this I would have to oppose it.--Ykraps (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Christchurch, Dorset/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is one great article! I will review it after the Mitt Romney article is concluded. I have high hopes because the article is so good! TeacherA (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We look forward to hearing your comments. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that TeacherA has abandoned, so I will take over the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    A station was built in the town near the existing one in 1862 and was served by a branch line from Ringwood. seems a little clumsy, we have read that the nearest station was some way away, so why was a new station nearby needed? Christchurch joined the mainline in 1883 and a new station was built This needs clarification.{[done}}
    - The original station was some 7 miles outside of town. When a branch line was constructed from Ringwood, a station was built in the town close to where the modern station now stands. When the mainline eventually came through the town, a third station was built and the second station eventually fell into disuse. I need to have a bit of a think as to how I can make this sentence less ambiguous while still keeping it succinct.
    - Now clarified, I think.
    It includes large rural areas including Bournemouth International Airport and the parishes of Burton and Hurn. Clumsy phrasing - "it includes" - "including" Done
    - Done.
    "Conservative" could do with wikification at first mention: "The Mayor of Christchurch for 2010–2011 is Conservative councillor Nicholas Geary" Done
    - If you mean an internal link, then the word 'Conservative' is linked in the previous sentence "...resulting in the Conservatives retaining overall control with 17 seats'. Do you want it linked again or are you talking about something different? #::::NP, Missed the arlier link
    Christchurch is situated on the south coast of England at 50°44′N 1°47′W / 50.73°N 1.78°W / 50.73; -1.78. We already have the coordinates at the top of the article and in the infobox. I don't think they are needed here. Done
    - Removed.
    Christchurch Harbour is a large salt marsh I don't think this is accurate, how can a harbour be a marsh? Done
    - Rewritten. "contains large areas of salt marsh...".
    Christchurch's town centre encompasses a mixture of traditional public houses, restaurants, coffee shops, quaint houses and historic listed buildings. "quaint"? Done
    - Replaced 'quaint' with 'antiquated'.
    The Grade I listed Christchurch Castle is of Norman origin and of a motte and bailey construction. "motte and bailey " was a mound surrounded by a palisade, the stone walls would be from a later more substantial construction. Perhaps you meant to say "was originally of" Done
    - The walls of the keep were stone, the walls around the bailey were constructed of wood. I have however added the words 'originally of' to avoid confusion.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Bournemouth Airport is among the busiest international airports in the country and is an important economic generator for the region. Owned and operated by Manchester Airports Group, the airport handles 800,000 passengers annually and supports around 900 full-time equivalent jobs which contribute more than £24 million to the local economy. The cite (ref #83[1] does not support the claim that "Bournemouth Airport is among the busiest international airports in the country"  Done
    - Replaced with http://www.dorsetforyou.com/323485
    Other provided references chck out and are reliable sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Broad thorough and focussed.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Tagged, licensed , FUR rationales and captioned.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    OK, a few relatively minor points to clear up. There should be little problem in sorting these out. On hold for seven days for these issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for addressing those points, I am now happy to pass this as a Good Article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Great news, thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Pass. TeacherA (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hampshire/Dorset

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Christchurch, Dorset. 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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

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)[reply]

What is it precicisely, you think ought to be removed from this article?--Ykraps (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) BarretB, Phil Whiston, Penbat, PJT1957 (pinging some locals)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of removing the split message from the article, since as of April 1st there is no Borough of Christchurch anymore. JoshTilley (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested improvement - religion in census

[edit]

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)[reply]

Carry on then Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Bournemouth airport

[edit]

Nowadays Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch are separate parishes although part of a unitary authority. The Christchurch article covers the town and civil parish of Christchurch, as stated in the lead, which does not include Hurn, which is a separate parish. If you look at www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-government/products/election-maps and select civil parish boundaries you can clearly see this. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)(talk) 17:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my edit summary, the airport’s own website says it is in Christchurch.[[2]] That Hurn is a parish does not mean it isn’t in Christchurch. Burton is also a parish (as your map shows) but is still very much part of Christchurch. Reliable sources put Hurn in Christchurch. These include, Ordnance Survey[[3]], Bournemouth Echo[[4]], Office for National Statistics[[5]] and the Royal Mail[[6]]. Residents in Hurn vote for, and are represented by, the MP for Christchurch[[7]] and their children attend a Christchurch school[[8]]. But, in any event, as the airport and the accompanying business park contribute much to the economy of Christchurch, they belong in the article, irrespective of where you believe them to be.--Ykraps (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it to be anywhere. It is physically in the civil parish of Hurn. That is a fact. The article is about the town and civil parish of Christchurch which has well defined borders. Because it was in the old borough of Christchurch is irrelevant. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is irrelevant is whether Hurn is a parish or not. As I said Burton is also a parish but still part of Christchurch. Reliable sources put both Hurn and the airport in Christchurch but, as I said earlier, the airport is mentioned in this article because it is very much linked to the local economy. Please get consensus for the changes you wish to make.--Ykraps (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should say that the airport was (until 2019) in the borough but indeed its not now in Christchurch, its not in the BUASD and its not in the parish. The parish is now Burton and Winkton not "Burton" (it was renamed) and while Burton is in the BUASD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Built Up Area Sub Divisions are again different and cross boundaries. The Christchurch Built Up Area Sub Division includes Barton-on-Sea which is, I believe, part of New Milton. Hurn is not in a BUASD because it isn't considered a built up area.--Ykraps (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day the airport is not in the town or the civil parish of Christchurch which is the subject of the article. All the special pleading and references to the situation before 2019 doesn't change that. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Exactly, the borough ceased to exist in 2019 so its not been a Christchurch (the district) since 2019 and its clearly not part of the parish and its not likely part of the town. The point of confusion is perhaps partly due to the fact we have an article about a current town and CP combined with that of a former borough, I suggested splitting the borough like what has been done with Borough of Chorley or Borough of Oswestry etc but that was apparently rejected above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you both keep WP:3RR in mind. I will notify Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography and Wikipedia:WikiProject Dorset that there is a disagreement here that needs resolving.
There is also some guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Managing_ambiguity_and_uncertainty, though I'm not sure how much that helps us here.
FWIW, I find the references cited here to the airport being in Christchurch very unconvincing in this scenario:
  • It was in the borough, which no longer exists, so of course many sources that were published before the still quite recent abolition of borough will not reflect the current situation. (Thanks to Murgatroyd49 for recognising that the Wikipedia article is one such source that was overdue a review to reflect the new situation!)
  • The post town for Hurn is Christchurch, which is why it appears in addresses, but there are a great many precedents for not describing one place as being inside another just because the other is the post town -- we don't say that Wool, Dorset is in Wareham, Dorset, but Wareham appears in its addresses.
  • I don't think the constituency is relevant, there are many examples of constituencies named after one town within them, but covering a much larger area. Look at the size of the constituencies named "Yeovil", "Salisbury" and "Devizes".
That said, we're talking about the economy section of the article, and towns do not have self-contained economies that halt at their borders. It would seem appropriate to describe how Christchurch's economy is bound up with that of the conurbation and region around it, including the airport. But I wouldn't expect three whole paragraphs on the airport and the history of industry there, duplicating detail already exists in more specific articles which are linked to. --Joe D (t) (edited 10:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC))[reply]
On the subject of post towns, they were never intended as definitive geographical definitions, merely the location of the relevant Royal Mail sorting office. As these have often been superceded by large, more centrally located hubs, the use of post towns in addresses is now deprecated. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is now about the civil parish and therefore excludes the airport then we could do with a new article on the former borough which can include the airport. Eopsid (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article about the airfield itself. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly and per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE it’s hard to understand why this is even in debate. There need only be a sentence which says something like the airport used to be within the Borough prior to the creation of BCP and perhaps note that the airport’s website continues to describe it as being at christchurch (if that is indeed the case, I haven’t checked). Wikilinks take away any need for this discussion. DeCausa (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then the airfield part of this article needs to be moved there (I assume most of its already duplicated). I still think creating an article on the former borough would be beneficial. Eopsid (talk)
Can’t really see the need for an article about the former Borough, it will inevitably be just a duplication of material already available in the more relevant articles. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support splitting as per above, given the borough is abolished and a parish exists with different boundaries the risk of duplication has reduced. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the issue is as complex as it seems. Although the airport is no longer within the Borough of Christchurch it is still a notable transport hub in the immediate area, so mentioning it in the 'Transport' subsection of the Christchurch article is appropriate. This follows the precedent set at Bournemouth#Transport and Poole#Transport; for an example outside Dorset, Knutsford#Transport mentions Manchester Airport despite being in neighbouring Cheshire. As at those articles, it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hurn is mentioned in the Transport section. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is, and based on other articles I'd say nothing more is needed. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review of the economy section

[edit]

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 [[9]], published by BCP council in 2019 but as you can see from this map,[[10]] the Christchurch area includes Hurn and the airport.--Ykraps (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dorset Council have produced datasets for Employees by Industry (2020)[[11]], Business Demography (2020)[[12]], Business Count (2021) [[13]] and Earnings (2021)[[14]] which includes comparisons with other areas, including Christchurch. I don't know what they consider to be Christchurch though. --Ykraps (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraphs 2-3 - aircraft manufacturing: this is all history, does it really belong in this section, at least, in this much detail? Perhaps a single paragraph linking to the airfield article and manufacturers
  • Paragraph 4 - airport: even leaving aside the other question on inclusion of the airport, some of this doesn't read right for an encyclopaedia article. "Among the busiest international airports in the country" and "an important economic generator for the region" read like marketing material -- number of passengers and jobs are good encyclopaedic facts that do enough to show the airport's importance, without those PR lines. The other details, like the now more than decade old upgrade and the list of employers (which should be checked to ensure it's still correct), feel to me like they're excessive for this article and the readers can instead click into the Bournemouth Airport article if they wanted that much detail.
  • Paragraph 5 - high street: this data is 17 years old! So much has changed since then, it's very misleading to still have this data here without at least making it clear how old it is.
  • Paragraph 6 - tourism: this data is 14 years old, and again, applies to the borough area.

Some of what's missing:

  • Explanation of the economic context of the conurbation and region
  • Information on economic inactivity, deprivation and regeneration

This whole section feels like it's a bit stuck in the late '00s and not how we'd write a section on the economy of Christchurch if we were starting from a blank page today, and not just because of the abolition of the borough. -- Joe D (t) 11:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christchurch,_Dorset&oldid=1206678541"