Talk:Southport

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

Gas Tower[edit]

Should we add photos of it's removal? --Anappleadaykeepsthedocaway (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please! Certainly in a category on Commons, even if they aren't embedded directly in the article. The gas holder is a significant landmark - I have a feeling it's even notable amongst gas holders, as a rare survivor of that "cage" style. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may put them on a seperate article called Southport Gas Holder. We need more images on that page and in paticular Commons. I am looking forward to your contributions. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pan's Playground[edit]

Does any one have any photographs of this long lost part of Southport? It would be fantastic to also make a page for it as well. Sadly I can not find any ref. as of yet... Can anyone help? Anappleadaykeepsthedocaway (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Education[edit]

Tried to clean it up a bit. As I did, I spotted Southport College was not listed... So I have added it. Might be worth putting a link to the Ofted reports for the area? Anyone have any views on this? Anappleadaykeepsthedocaway (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politics[edit]

Merge[edit]

There was previoiusly a note to merge the Politics section with Southport (UK Parliament constituency). I removed this in light of recent plans to rename/redefine Southport's constituency to allow time to see what actually happens. --me_and 14:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

History of Southport in Merseyside[edit]

I've copied this over from User_talk:IanDavies, as it's relevant to the article:


I know that Southport is now part of the (administrative) county of Merseyside(!), but think it's important to also mention that it was part of the (administrative) county of Lancashire before that, which is what I put. (It is still part of the traditional county of Lancashire however - the borders for that have never changed).

I just tried to give a bit more detailed idea of the history behind the decision, which I think is important to include as it was (perhaps still is!) a contentious issue in the town. I can see it was a bit fuzzy though, so I've rewritten my earlier effort and I think my new version makes the situation clearer and shows the distinction.

(I was also trying to point people towards the distinction between different types of county, and the different roles they play by referring to them by the technical terms administrative, ceremonial and traditional counties, and pointing towards those articles in Wikipedia).

Have a read at my new version and see what you think - hopefully you'll like the new version more!

PS I agree with your removal of the sentence about the traditional county in the Lancashire article - I was going to do it myself (I didn't write it, I just moved it). The problem is that there is only one page for 'Lancashire' , a term which relates to two different areas according to which type of county you're referring to. We'll just have to make it clear each time the difference is important, and refer to the ceremonial [ie modern] or traditional [ie old] county specifically. Aquilina 13:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at you edit's. Are you doing this as part of the Campaign for Real lancashire?--IanDavies 14:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have no agenda. It's just that it's more complicated a situation than saying "Southport is in Merseyside" makes out. That is true, but it's not the full picture at all.

Please clarify what you feel is wrong with adding the extra information. It doesn't contradict your version, just gives a fuller picture. Aquilina 16:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aquilina 17:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the content but I think it should be in either a section of it's own or the History section. The status in Merseyside is a fact of life. An easier way to do it would be to produce a good article on the debate from a National POV.--IanDavies 20:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it should be in a section of its own, that's where you should have put it rather than simply reverting! - it's basic wikiquette, and far more constructive. I would disagree with putting it in the history section, as Southport's status within the *traditional* county of Lancashire is still current [just as much a fact of life as its presence in the *administrative* county of Merseyside], and relevant - many people in Southport still give their county as Lancashire, and for this reason alone it deserves clarification and explanation. Southport's status in both of these different types of counties is not a POV matter - it's plain fact.
I will put the information in a separate section; if you disagree with this version, please edit it constructively or, if you feel you must revert it, why not RfC it at the same time? Hopefully this will be a good compromise option, but if this fails we might as well try and seek mediation. Aquilina 15:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did edit constritivly I spelt out the exact Historical relationship and modern one. It is you edits which seek to give some offical status to the taditional counties that is bad editing. --IanDavies 16:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, the current version should hopefully be ok for both of us. There is no mention of Lancashire till the new third section. If not, please just edit the *specific* bits you disagree with, rather than reverting the lot, as I've added extra stuff [about the merge with Bootle and so on] which shouldn't be lost. Aquilina 16:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine with me.--IanDavies 18:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that both the current administrative status of Southport and its position within a traditional county are key aspects of the town's identity, and therefore should be mentioned in the introduction. I hope that my edit reflects this from a neutral point of view, and avoids offence to the partisans of the new and the old. Countersubject 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

npov[edit]

The page smacks of an advert for southport, specifically on the transport side of things. I think we should point out that there is no direct rail link to Preston and the town is not well connected by road.

Moved this section to the end of the page. New items are by convention appended to the page. Countersubject 11:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Location of Steve Jones's Photography[edit]

I see from the page's history that there's some uncertainty about the location of SJ's photography. Under or over water? Is this significant? Have I been away from Southport for too long? Countersubject 00:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southport in Relation to Surrounding Areas[edit]

I've removed the paragraph 'It is called Souwie by the Scousers' from the intoduction, added by 82.152.209.70 at 11:32, 18th July, as it doesn't really fit in the introduction. Perhaps it could belong in a new section on the interaction of Southport with its surrounding areas, from a number of angles: economy, society, geography, language etc. BTW - Wikipedia encourages those who edit pages to do so through a Wikipedia account. Countersubject 12:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pier Picture[edit]

If anyone could upload a picture of the pier for the Southport Pier article I would appreciate it. --Paul E. Ester 01:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted your request. Will add one for you as soon as I can register. --81.129.235.13 (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)newuser-appleman[reply]

I have just got a few shots to go on of the pier. Just need to scan them now. Also need to sign up to upload them. But do you want up to date only or old photos as well? --81.129.235.13 (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Signing-up-tomorrow[reply]


Rail- Present[edit]

Why is there a load of stuff about Pleasureland in the rail section? Should we make a Pleasureland section, or mention it in economy?

Population[edit]

I have added up the Ward statistics on the UK National Statistics website for the 7 wards that cover Southport within Sefton to come up with an accurate figure for the population (see reference on article).

On the subject of the UK Office of National Statistics, could it be worth mentioning that Southport is home to one of its four branches, at Smedley Hydro? ONS is a relatively significant government agency, and to my knowlege, one of the towns largest employers. 81.156.205.69 (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southport Reporter[edit]

The para on the Southport Reporter under History verges on a commercial, Talk:Southport/Archive,reporter

Is my Memory Faulty or Correct? Someone please help![edit]

Having been brought up in Southport in the 1950s I seem to remember there was a large explosion at a petrol station not far from Meols Cop Secondary School. This would have been around 1957. I'll continue to attempt to find out if this actually happened.

Soarhead77 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Media[edit]

Just a quick log on and off... Thought I should put this before making any more changes...

Ref - Should Liverpool Echo etc. and all media names carry ref? Might be a good idea to do this.

I have spotted a bit about Southport GB? Is this site media or not? No ref made and reads very poorly...

A newly popular website covering the (unofficial) news of Southport is Southport GB. This website covers minor/trivial stories usually relayed from local taxi drivers to the website owner. Southport GB also contains a forum for its residents to moan/gossip about trivial matters and express their right-wing, reactionary and usually inappropriate comments about anyone or anything.

Should this be removed? Also it has a link to an article on Wikipedia with this exact name. This does not look good for the section and in my view it should be removed. 89.243.241.240 (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like the orginal article was removed as not being notable, hence the dead link. So probably it too should be removed. - Galloglass 23:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Added the following paragraph, which was subsequently removed by 91.109.13.49:

"In addition, there are four other local radio stations that transmit to Southport: BBC Radio Merseyside, Radio City 96.7, Juice 107.6, and Rock FM 97.4."

On reflection, is this relevant to the article? I think it is, but understand that you could argue that more stations should be included. Any opinions? Snowy 1973 13:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a note that other forms of media are available in the area, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.235.13 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people[edit]

Notable people in Southport

Disappointed to find that the list of notable people from or resident in Southport has recently been edited without, in my view, proper justification. A good example of the kind of arrogant 'I know better than you' messing about that means Wikipedia is so much less valuable and reliable than it could be.

There are no firm rules on what constitutes 'notability' as far as I am aware. So, it's a subjective thing and therefore one person's opinion is as valid as another as long as people are not merely listing their friends and neighbour, etc.

However, some of the alterations made do not even make objective sense; the writer Tony Jordan has been a figure of considerable influence in British TV drama for 10 years or more and has had more impact in his field than, say, the guitarist Ollie Halsall. I'm wondering if the person making the edits is unaware that Tony Jordan grew up in Southport, and his parents still live in Ainsdale.

When the 'notable people' list was first added to the Southport page, it was to give an idea of people who not were not only born in the town but who, by living here, have made an impact on the town's identity. By that token, people like Dr Barnardo, Kenny Dalglish and Alan Hansen should certainly still be included. It's ridiculous to say that because someone was not born in the town, they don't have an influence. This is information of general interest.


Also, I don't believe that just because a person does not have their own Wikipedia page they should not be included. The best example of this is the Rev Marcus Morris, a figure of great influence in the field of comics publishing. There's a certain kind of weird paradox at work when someone is deemed unimportant because they're not on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gleamhound (talk • contribs) 29 October 2007

Unfortunately so many marginal and non famous people have been added to this list that many users who read this list judged its was ok to add their friends, mother, sister brother etc. Now the main test for inclusion on Wikipeidia as a 'Notable Person' is pretty strict and laid down in WP:BIO. Many of those that were removed failed this test, some simply because of any lack of referencing on their article, others because their connection was minimal. I would very like to include Marcus Morris on the notable list but with no article extant there seems little chance of it meeting the test of WP:BIO at the present time. When such an article is created, you can be sure he will belong on the list. By all means propose any individual for re-inclusion here and we can all discuss their merits. Thanks Galloglass 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to see this conversation, and have now created Marcus Morris stub page - certainly notable, as he's in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and there were 3 different redlinks to him already. (Almost anyone in UK could have done this, as most public libraries provide online access to ODNB, from home, through their subscription.) PamD (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ronson's mother Ann Dexter-Jones is from Southport, and Ronson has personally announced at his Liverpool gigs that he himself is from Southport (which was met by a roar of boos last time he was there). Despite her being a successful author abroad, can anyone explain why this is not worth adding? I tried to add it myself, and just because Ann Dexter-Jones was not a Wiki page it got repeatedly removed by some blithering purist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.241.58 (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the "blithering purist" had actually read WP:BIO, unlike yourself; but if you can establish notability for the women (say, enough to write an article about her) then she can be added. Swanny18 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I have just added <ref>ref</ref> section to the page to fit in with Wikipedia rules for references. If any one can add more please do. The more we have that backs up our information on this page the better it will be, as it will comply with the ref. rules on Wiki better. --81.129.235.13 (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)newuser-Appleman-Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.235.13 (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magazines And Newspapers[edit]

Just added Lancashire Life but it does not appear to have a Wiki page. I think it should, so I am not 100% if I have missed it... Does it have an entry? If not should we add one? Can any one help?

This has been added to mainspace as Lancashire Life. Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also what are the other two magazines in the Southport area. I know that the Champ. and Vis. do one each... If anyone could add them I think that would be fantastic. --81.129.235.13 (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Appelman-martin Sorry not been able to register tonight as I had hoped... Just a quick added section... Does any one know the start date and end date of the Southport Star newspaper? Also the Southport Advertiser? I have it on file in one of the books, but I can not locate it. I am also adding Coastlines, a magazine made by Sefton Council Ranger Service. --81.129.235.13 (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Will get to register some day.[reply]

Cleanup of Article[edit]

Hi all, I had a go at the lead today. I'm surprised this article got a B-Class rating. If we want it to go to GA class as is Runcorn it needs more work.Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia[edit]

The 15:54, 8 August 2008 The Rambling Man version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Wing (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(This move suggestion was rejected overwhelmingly, and closed itself per WP:SNOW in July 2009. Archived by Swanny18 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC). )[reply]

with the number of places globally named southport, the default for southport should be the disambiguation page and not the city in england. WillC (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose move - The other "Southports" appear to be fairly insignificant places in comparison. There is already a hatnote linking to the disambiguation page at the top of the article. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 20:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move per Jenuk1985 and WP:PRIME; readers are most likely to be looking for the town in England when they enter "Southport" in the search box. Nev1 (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly oppose move. I have the unusual perspective of being a New Yorker resident in England, so can maybe appreciate the relative recognition factor of both the major Southports better than most. I'd agree that the UK town is the most significant usage, but also that a significant proportion of readers searching for "Southport" will be looking for Southport Correctional Facility. I still think the majority of those searching on this term will be after the English town, so would oppose a move. – iridescent 20:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move Agree with the opinions above. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose move The Southport in question is the major one, and the others are in countries where the addition of a state or province name or abbreviation is customary. This is not the case with the Southport that is in England. There is an existing disambiguation which is clearly linked for those who end up here by mistake. The only prior editing of any Southport by the 'mover' that I can see in the last six months is an edit to Southport, North Carolina, so I can't see quite why he is getting so worked up about this issue. Peridon (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGLY SUPPORT MOVE predictable that all those strongly opposed to the move are from england...i suppose Jenuk1985 went out and recruited you....your lack of geo-neutrality is evident....anyone searching in the united states will think of southport, north carolina, first.....a hotbed for american movies and tv show filming. WillC (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. In my case, this article was already on my watchlist and I have edited it previously. Nev1 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
good faith was not assumed when my original changes were reverted without a second thought, but whatever. WillC (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly (or fortunately, whichever view you take), the world doesn't revolve around the US. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 22:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you admit your bias finally. that clears things up. WillC (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a statement of bias, it's a statement that wikipedia is meant to have a global view. Nev1 (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed good faith by the 'mover'. I'm beginning to have doubts following the above comments. Peridon (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC) (A 'watcher' and editor of Southport amongst other places.)[reply]
  • Oppose move. Traffic stats show 7000 hits on England article in May and 200 hits on the dab page. Clearly most of the readers reaching this article that acts like the primary topic aren't looking for another article, so it appears to indeed be the primary topic. BTW, I'm from the U.S., and have never been to England except for an airport, once. Reverting rash moves does not indicated a lack of assumption of good faith. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per WP:BIAS; can we move NY to point to North Yorkshire please? No? Thought not. So please, have some consideration for that strange world that exists outside of the USA.  Chzz  ►  00:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move on the basis of the traffic stats quoted by JHunterJ. ClickRick (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
where's the proof? WillC (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[1] and [2] Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 01:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is no provision of evidence that the shift should be made, beyond don't you think? and there is evidence that the UK town has predominance under the established criteria. To get such a move, demonstrate to me that the 'What links here' is incorrect and not managed; that there is a high burden of incorrect links; that there is a higher assumption that there is a predominance to another place of that name. Give me the evidence to that effect, and I will review my viewpoint. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC) (not living in either UK or US).[reply]
  • Comment - I'm from the U.S. and from North Carolina. Reviewing the disambiguation policy and indicators that would show a Primary Topic, I guess the question is if this article is much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer. Traffic to this article is 10x that of the NC article (some traffic may be because it holds the primary name though - still a significant number). "What links here" likewise shows significantly more links to the England article. Google gives them fairly equal ranking in a "Soutport" search, suggesting that it should be a disambig (but I'm not sure if Google is doing some GeoLocation on my IP to give me different results for my location - perhaps someone could test from the other side of the pond). So, I'm undecided (leaning toward oppose) on the move but do agree that England's Southport is more notable and the most likely destination for "Southport". Morphh (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move - The English Southport is clearly the primary use as a brief look at the population figures of the various Southports would indicate :-
Southport, England (99,456)
Southport, Queensland {24,097}
Southport, New York (11,185)
Southport, North Carolina {2,351}
Southport, Connecticut (2,201)
Southport, Indiana (1,852)
Southport, Maine {684)
Southport, Newfoundland and Labrador (50)
Southport, Florida (unknown)
Southport, Illinois (unknown : it's a rapid transit station!)
Skinsmoke (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move per other opposers DBaK (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This move suggestion seems to have been rejected overwhelmingly, and closed itself per WP:SNOW in July 2009. So (to tidy up a bit) I'm formally closing and archiving it. Swanny18 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Architecture[edit]

The section opens with :-

"Southport has many fascinating buildings and features. Buildings and Gardens of architectural interest to note are:"

It then goes on to list numerous buildings, six of which aren't actually there any longer, along with at least one garden that has been built on. The list is then followed by a comment which clearly violates the neutral point of view policy. This whole section needs an overhaul, and perhaps a bit of information adding on the various sites. Maybe even incorporate into the Landmarks section? Any comments? Skinsmoke (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whats wrong with the section? ithink its much better than the "landmarks" section, which should actually be called "Attractions"

It doesnt matter if there are buildings in the architecture list that have gone (demolished), as the buildings that have gone have been important parts of southport and its history and architectural history, and maybe influencing other buildings.

As for the comment at the end i dont see what is wrong with it as it is more of a statement saying there are many other buildings that are private houses, (now surely you dont want every individual one listing) which are architectually important, that have been demolished/ or may be luck to still remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.67.243 (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the section should start:-
"'Southport used to have many fascinating buildings and features but these have since been demolished. Derelict sites that once housed buildings and gardens of architectural interest to note are:"
The problem with the final paragraph is that it expresses an opinion, which is directly contrary to Wikipedia rules. It needs rephrasing in a neutral tone per WP:NPOV. If in doubt about how to improve this section, check out a few of the Good articles or Featured articles from the United Kingdom. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Despite the names, it's standard practice to use Template:Infobox UK place for settlements and Template:Infobox settlement for boroughs. Hence the Trafford article uses Template:Infobox settlement whereas Sale, Greater Manchester, uses Template:Infobox UK place (both FAs). It's detailed in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Infobox*, although not explained as such. I'm not sure why one is preferred to the other, presumably the fields are considered more appropriate for different types of places, but it's likely that someone will revert the current infobox. If there are any concerns, using Template:Infobox UK place has been no obstacle to many articles on towns getting FA status. Nev1 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

As you can see I have re-shaped and editted the history section of this article. I know it looks a little limp at the moment, but I will improve it shortly. I have been reading about local history lately and so I have lots of good information. But I still need people's help to get this section... and article to a good tandard. I would love to see people's contributions.

I aslo think there should be a sub-section on Southport's role during the WW's, but my knowledge is limited on that area.

Just incase you don't know our aim is to get this article to GA Satus. --93gregsonl2 (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people - 2[edit]

Having an unsourced list of names is simply not acceptable. A significant connection with Southport needs to be reliably sourced. After a reasonable time, any name without such a source may be removed. TerriersFan (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that ones not belonging get challenged fairly quickly if they're not backed up in their own article as regards the Southport connection. Of the places on my watchlist, Southport is one of those about which I worry the least. Peridon (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry but this is not what I am seeing. Firstly, having regard to WP:BLP any significant statement about living people needs sourcing. If the connection is sourced in the article then copying the source to the list is straightforward. Taking some entries at random:
TerriersFan (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you; the current list is absurd. Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the light of the edit summary that 'articles verify', let me say that I agree with Malleus Fatuorum that verification must also be in this list. As I mention above, "If the connection is sourced in the article then copying the source to the list is straightforward." However, in many cases the articles do not verify. I give a list of examples above and even claims of others being born in Southport are not sourced. The first two I looked at were:
I would add that, in any case, the list is unhelpful without being structured to indicate the nature of the connection to Southport (born there, worked there etc). TerriersFan (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History section: samphire and "blown sand gave way to new fish"[edit]

I've just language edited this section, and corrected a reference to samphire being only found at a few sites in western Europe. Both types of samphire are relatively widespread, and the less common type isn't found in the Southport area: http://www.samphire.org.uk/types_of_samphire.php, http://www.seasonalwildflowers.com/july/rock-samphire.html. I also amended this gibberish: "The population was scattered thinly across the region and it was at the North-East end of Otergimele (present day Crossens) where blown sand gave way to new fish supplies from the River Ribble estuary that a small concentration of people had occurred." Robocon1 (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This reference to recent research showing that samphire 'may have attracted' mesolithic hunter gatherers to settle in the area is uncited. Does anyone know which research, by who? It seems suspect because 1. the statement that samphire is only found at a few sites in western Europe is wrong, and 2. it's hard to imagine nomadic stone age people choosing to settle in an area just because a plant which is considered a delicacy grew there - its other uses in manufacturing soap and glass (which I added) would have been irrelevant to them. Robocon1 (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can get samphire quite easily from Morrisons! although, apparently it's from Watt's Farm in Kent. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Southport. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 04:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

other grim etymology[edit]

The first real evidence of an early settlement here is in the Domesday Book, in which the area is called Otergimele. The name is derived from Oddrgrimir meaning the son of Grimm and is linked to the Old Norse word melr meaning sandbank.

Say what? "The son of Grimm", whether in Old Norse or Old English, would be (wait for it) Grimmsson or Grimmssonnr or Grimmssunu or the like. A compound of Odd with Grim is a bit dubious also because both of these are names of Odin. And if the m belongs to Grim then it probably doesn't also belong to melr.

A source might help. —Tamfang (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Southport. 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) 04:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Southport. 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) 13:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon III[edit]

More evidence is needed for the assertion that Lord Street was "once [the] home of Napoleon III of France." The refernce provided is to an advertising website for Lord Street. This is not an authoritative secondary source - it claims "Louise napoleon lived here", but provides no evidence, or reference to a reliable historical secondary source. Spodatus (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that claim, pending a better source. There is no mention of Southport at Napoleon III, although he did die, in exile, at Chislehurst in Kent. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Napoleon III was before 1848, when he took the throne, not after the Franco-Prussian War when he was exiled to Kent. I think (but don't know) this was in his exile (he had several) after his second coup (he also had several) in 1840.
There's a plaque on Lord Street itself [3] Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ok, thanks for clarifying. Let's call him "Prince Louis Napoleon" as that source does. But the plaque just says that he lived in Southport in 1838 and that he "admired" Lord Street? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that, absent other evidence, a plaque on Lord Street tells us anything more than that the Civic Society thinks he lived there and admired it. Nor am I aware of any sources on which it has based this belief (I've checked the wbsite and emailed a request for detail, but to no avail).
The reference for the assertion under '19th Century' is little better. It is to a local newspaper article quoting an architectural historian who admits "His links with Southport have so far eluded his biographers". Spodatus (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, I would not object to its removal. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Spodatus (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orgrimmar?[edit]

The History section currently says: "The first real evidence of an early settlement here is in the Domesday Book, in which the area is called Otergimele. The name is derived from Oddrgrimir meaning the son of Grimm[citation needed] and is linked to the Old Norse word melr meaning sandbank."

However, it also seems that, apparently: "Orgrimmar is the capital city of the Horde, with large settlements of trolls, orcs and tauren. Orgrimmar is also home to the Ragefire Chasm instance, a network of volcanic tunnels taken by the Burning Blade" So I'd suggest that this might be quickly removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. this article by Francis A. Bailey (2004) might be useful though. Here's an extract. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source of Otergimele appears to be this edit from a long dormant editor. The source is the Domesday book which states "North Meols, Otegrimele / Otringemele: Roger de Poitou, Meols Hall in Southport." This is apparently this guy -> Roger the Poitevin.
Searching the correct spelling of Otegrimele brings up a few sources such as 'Townships: North Meols', in A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 3, ed. William Farrer and J Brownbill (London, 1907), pp. 230-236, a piece by the Liverpool Museums This gives an alternate origin of the names etymology on page 73.
Regarding Otringemele however I can also find Orrell being described as the subject of that name and again here. this piece by Lumby provides a map and tries to counter the arguments etc over the dispute / classification issue, which is somewhat semi supported by this book on page 59 stating "Another Orrell, in Sefton parish, is set down in Domesday as Otringemele".
In conclusion, there's sufficient support for the origin, but we should be attributing it. Koncorde (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all those useful sources. But "Oddrgrimir meaning the son of Grimm"? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't particularly checking the underlying meaning but rather trying to find where there might be sources to clarify the history. From what I read in the links I glanced at last night I didn't see that being supported. I don't think I found anything supporting Oddrgrimir at all, and any sites referencing it in the internet are likely duplicating the longstanding claim from wikipedia. Koncorde (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I agree. The sources you have provided should be very useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So looking into the books in more detail, below is a summary of the content from the links which may reverse my previous statement (apologies, I hadn't read the new articles sourcing fully at the time);
  • Domesday Book, area is referred to as "North Meols, Otegrimele / Otringemele: Roger de Poitou, Meols Hall in Southport." probably worth mentioning the link to Roger the Poitevin.
  • Farrer & Brownbill (which is generally very reliable and well sourced itself) states "Otegrimele, Otringemele, Dom. Bk.; Northmeles, 1232; Nordmele, 1237." indicating the changing naming convention from a thing, to a place. The switch from Otegr to North / Nord may mean "Otring" or "Otegr" could be inferred to be a persons name or otherwise, but it would need a reliable source covering the etymology. Farrer & Brownbill in their notes #2 refer to "#2. Odda son of Grim was an ancestor of a certain Mark of Melis; Landnámabok, iii, 17." which may be significant as it would suggest "OddaGrimMeles" is plausible). "Meles" itself is well cited in a number of sources as meaning "sand banks" / "sand dunes".
  • Sefton Historic Settlement Study on page 73/74 actually summarises some of Farrer & Brownbill quite succinctly (we may wish to paraphrase), in addition to a few other contemporaries of theirs. They reference the names origin as "Otegrimele (1086). This is a corruiption of a scandinavian personal name, possibly Old Norse "Audgrimr"." I suspect Audgrimr will turn out to mean "OddaGrim" and may tie in. This would be verging on OR / Synth so would suggest we stick to referencing what is said rather than inferring unless a supporting source can be identified from one of the suggested books.
  • History of the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster: III, by Baines, I suspect is confusing the Orrell of Wigan, with this other Township of Orrell that is Otingremele. It refers to the same valuation, which would be somewhat of a coincidence, or perhaps we have some bleeding through because of similarity of names. Baines is usually reliable otherwise (per below)
  • History County Palatine of Duchy of Lancaster: I, also by Baines, refers to the West Derby Hundreds and in particular talks about Crosby, Halsall, Everton and Orrell ID'd as "Otringemele" which would suggest that he knew that there were two Orrells at some point.
  • Domesday Survey of South Lancashire, by Lumby, is citing and referring to Farrer for the purposes of making its arguments about Hirleton. Less relevant, but ties all together.
  • THE PLACE-NAMES OF THE LIVERPOOL DISTRICT; by Henry Harrison is a quality book and its summary at the end on page 59 is very insightful. "Melar" meaning "stretch of sand" makes you wonder how Orrell in Wigan would ever be the source of the name, so he has his own hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests an alternative to the concept of OddaGrim, by suggesting "teigr" meaning meadow resultng in the leap to " the sandy area out of which not a strip of meadow-land could be got." I would suggest this is somewhat fanciful, but it's interesting all the same. Though I do not see it ever being referred to by any other reliable sources published after the fact (which may reflect its "etymological" analysis, rather than actually being to Orrell and seeing it doesn't have a beach...).
In summary, yes we can probably infer that the OddaGrimm story is true, if only because it is referenced in the Landnamabok. However we should clearly state that "it is suggested" as one possible source, just as is "Audgrimr". Two new sources I found are from Ekwall here on page 125 and 126 which semi reinforces OddaGrimm (although it states "not evidenced") and in this more modern summary by Stephen Harding here on page 98 who references Ekwall, and suggests the OddGrimmr / Audgrim link. Koncorde (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southport&oldid=1209081986"