Talk:Blackpool

Looking to other similar articles for balance.
There is a lot of great information in this article. Most agree it is verbose and a lot of 'text area' is simply too much detail for an encyclopedic article.

There are many really well written WP articles on similar communities - perhaps taking a close look at the structure of these is time well spent - I am happy to take a structure and present it to the WP group who are part of the updating/upgrading of this article - I am not local - so a lot of the finer details - really should come from folks withing the real world community. BeingObjective (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * And AI says -- I. Introduction
 * A. Definition and Overview of Victorian Seaside Resorts
 * B. Historical Context of the Victorian Era
 * II. Development of Victorian Seaside Resorts
 * A. Early Origins and Influences
 * B. Factors Driving Seaside Resort Growth
 * C. Key Figures and Influential Personalities
 * III. Architectural and Urban Planning Aspects
 * A. Victorian Architecture in Seaside Resorts
 * B. Design and Layout of Victorian Seaside Towns
 * C. Landmarks and Prominent Structures
 * IV. Social and Cultural Impact
 * A. Role of Seaside Resorts in Victorian Society
 * B. Victorian Seaside Leisure Activities
 * C. Impact on Fashion, Art, and Literature
 * V. Economic Significance
 * A. Tourism and the Victorian Seaside Economy
 * B. Employment and Trade in Seaside Resort Towns
 * C. Business and Entrepreneurship in the Victorian Seaside Industry
 * VI. Decline and Revival
 * A. Factors Contributing to the Decline of Victorian Seaside Resorts
 * B. Conservation and Preservation Efforts
 * C. Contemporary Adaptations and Modern Resurgence
 * VII. Notable Victorian Seaside Resorts
 * A. Overview of Major Resorts
 * B. Unique Features of Specific Resorts
 * C. Comparison of Popular Destinations
 * VIII. Legacy and Influence
 * A. Lasting Impact on Tourism and Urban Planning
 * B. Cultural and Historical Significance
 * C. Modern Perceptions and Nostalgia
 * IX. Criticism and Controversies
 * A. Social Issues Associated with Victorian Seaside Resorts
 * B. Environmental Concerns and Conservation Challenges
 * C. Debates Surrounding Cultural Appropriation
 * X. References
 * A. Academic Sources
 * B. Primary Documents and Historical Records
 * C. Further Reading
 * XI. External Links
 * A. Relevant Websites and Resources
 * B. Online Archives and Exhibitions
 * C. Tourism Boards and Local Government Websites BeingObjective (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While AI can be a useful tool, WP:UKTOWNS has consensus on how to structure articles on settlements. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Totally agreed - do you think this article is compliant with the guidance you mentioned, is it targeted to a broader audience, does it really comply with WP:MOS, CLOP, verbatim copies, supporting quality citations etc.
 * Much of the supporting citations are of low quality IMHO.
 * The section on party conferences - please review - it has little relationship to Blackpool.
 * I think the many changes were indeed bold - I think the reversion editor missed the fact many, many other edits got swept away in the angst to preserve. I think these changes were far less bold and a surgical revert would be more appropriate. But that is an IMHO.
 * I made all my edits in very good faith and not to be subversive - it is a verbose, bloated article and a lot of content is not even about this town - it is as it is and I understand the 'defenders of the faith' - good luck and cheers. BeingObjective (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Reinstated original article
Lancashire was removed, prominent town? Borough gone, northwest England Manchester with populations etc? This wasn't discussed before and one new editor made a right hash of this article. Should have been discussed and kept in line with other Lancashire articles not a different worldwide view article. I've restored the 12 November one, it's inline with other UK articles than others. @PamD@Rupples@JMF@Crouch, Swale@KeithD@Chocolateediter@AD Hope thoughts? DragonofBatley (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We need to mention the ceremonial county in the lead.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I communicated with a number of members of the @ team.
 * Based on feedback - I propose a middle ground reversion - see this talk section.
 * I will go back to my medical articles, cheers Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly interested in Blackpool, its not on my (enormous) watchlist, and this scrap seems too far gone for me to invest the time which would be needed to catch up on recent edits and comment usefully. Good luck to all involved. Pam  D  23:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the matter resolved. Thanks again. BeingObjective (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Middle ground sensible proposals.
I noted the wholesale revert by @DragonofBatley.

Per feedback from more experienced editors with more of a stakeholder interest in this article - kindly consider more conservative reversion - let's not just leave it in the current state - proposals are:


 * 1) Retain image and table resizing.
 * 2) Retain 2021 census data consistently in the entire article.
 * 3) Keep the focus on Blackpool - it is an article about the town - why all the regional chatter?
 * 4) Retain all edits not made by this editor - ?
 * 5) Be very aware of overt CLOP
 * 6) Be aware of wandering diatribes that take up a lot of the article - party conventions, weather temps, why Dublin means a black pool etc. Why is 'shipwrecks' in that location?
 * 7) Be cautious of content that violate cp policies
 * 8) Consider there is a global audience of ~70 million
 * 9) Consider - encyclopedic tone
 * 10) Consider balance - is the diatribe on Polish Airmen worth so much text?
 * 11) Do many care about Littlewoods and the my snippets of ns adds - it is full of these little adds - added over many years.

You deleted out contributions from many other editors - who also acted in good faith - some excellent edits in my very humble opinion.

@DragonofBatley - with tremendous respect and civility - my edits were certainly strident and bold - but for each deletion I did state them as so and provided a verbose reason - I think your wholesale reversions impacting the work of dozens of other editors - might be a far greater sin.

I'll go back to my medical articles - they are less contentious.

Kindly Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am disinterested in Blackpool but fundamentally I consider DoB's reversion to have been excessive and disproportionate and have undone it. As I wrote in my edit note "See WP:Reverting: deal with the specific concerns individually. Use the talk page. A mass reversion like that is reserved for deliberately disruptive edits. " The (probably inadvertent) deletion of Lancashire from the lead is a poppy-seed that doesn't need a steam-roller to crack. Please discuss each change on its merits. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood and many thanks. BeingObjective (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Borough vs town statistics
The statistics given in this article are for the Borough of Blackpool, not the town.

I don't know what the boundaries of the town are but I understand the borough contains other settlements. Dgp4004 (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * In fact, so many sections are about the borough as opposed to the town that I would go so far as to suggest merging the borough and the town articles. Just as the Liverpool article is about both the city and the metropolitan borough.


 * Either that or an axe needs to be taken to this article to remove content which should really be on the borough page.Dgp4004 (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)