Talk:Bournemouth

Poole reference reductions
As I cut some details from the article to keep the length down it occurred to me that some people might think there was a political motive in my reducing the number of references to Poole (X is really in Poole and not in Bournemouth, etc). My motive for removing some of these references is that some of them are repeated, and that some of them are excessive detail in a long article, particularly if they are already mentioned in the article of the relevant subject. While it is an interesting phenomenon that deserves a mention, well to me at least, it doesn't need half a dozen mentions in an article that is already very long. That is my only concern here. Britmax (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. At present I think there are only two references to the phenomenon, in the lead and in the economy. There used to be half a dozen. Good work. LordHarris  19:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Economy
I know that the economy section is going to need a lot of work; the listing of companies based in Bournemouth is arbitary. Much better would be to form an overview of the sectors and topics with breadth (e.g. employment (see reference note)). The table could be improved, and the referenced source's value is debatable. A better source, I believe, is this one: http://urbecon.co.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/TheBournemouthEconomy2005.pdf. But what does anyone else think? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work to the article so far. I think the table can go, its not particularly clear or useful. I removed and replaced a similar table added by the same user to Poole a while back. The list of Bournemouth based companies would obviously be better off worked into the prose. Your source seems reliable and very comprehensive but is possibly a little bit out of date. The Bournemouth Council, Dorset County Council and Bournemouth Echo (examples  ) websites might also be useful references. BarretBonden (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Barret, I agree on the table also. I didn't really check the date of that source, I will still use it but will be sure to include mention of the date. Your sources are much appreciated, and will no doubt come in hand a lot when I get to writing the Economy section. Help doing this, especially from someone who's edited an equivalent article to GA, would be great! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * After some investigating I found a source which might be of worth (could someone check it over). It is reliable, recent and provides a good insight. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"As of February 2010, Fibrecity is connecting 4,000 homes and businesses a month in Bournemouth to the network and it is hoped that the town will be fully connected by the end of 2010." - is there a source for this, other than Fibrecity themselves (I seriously doubt it is true). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djaychela (talk • contribs) 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find a source to support the statement (said of the Fibrecity network) that "This is part of the National Government's plans for everyone in the UK to have access to 100 Mbit Broadband by 2010." I am not aware that the Government of the United Kingdom has any plans to provide everyone with 100Mbps broadband. If they do, can we have a citation, please? Tagging statement with citation needed, for now, but I think this statement will need to be removed. 79.79.135.250 (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sport
I looked up this article because I found some references to the British Hard Court Championships having been played in Bournemouth (see History of tennis: The first Grand Prix tournament was the British Hard Court Championships played on clay at Bournemouth on 28 April.), but I could not find a mention of tennis in the Sport section. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the subject to add it, but it certainly seems a sufficiently important part of Bournemouth's sport history to be included. Coyets (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Twin Towns
I have found no evidence that Bournemouth is twinned with Târgu Mureş, Romania. Please confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luketh (talk • contribs) 14:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/Council/twin_towns.asp

Bournemouth has two twin towns. Others removed and must stay removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.198.129 (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge "Bournemouth Eye" into Bournemouth as a new section
Proposed originally by Britmax 3 years ago, I agree that the article Bournemouth Eye should be merged into this in a new section, given that it's too small to require its own article. Any thoughts about it? ErKURITA (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. It should be merged into the culture and recreation section. The Bournemouth Eye article will likely never be more than a stub. Barret (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, didn't see your replay. Sounds good to me, anyone else? ErKURITA (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I proposed the merge on the main article. Now, what section would be fitting to include this article in? I first thought about Transportation->Air but it doesn't really serve as one. Then I thought about Culture and recreation, giving it its own sub-section. Thoughts? ErKURITA (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I shall proceed with the merge ErKURITA (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Creation of Wessex City
A decade or so ago Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch was going to be merged into one and called Wessex City - or City Wessex. This could have some link when it is discussed about certain things being linked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.18.225 (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Pier
In March I went to Bournemouth and I visited the Pier of Bournemouth and Boscombe (suburb). At the pictures you can see the same Pier but once it's called "Boscombe Pier" and once "Bournemouth Pier". I think that it's the Bournemouth Pier because there is a theatre on it. The Boscombe Pier is much smaller. If you don't agree I can post a photo of Boscombe Pier. Sorry for my bad english. -- Renredam (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * there are three pictures including the piers,
 * One labelled "Bournemouth Beach and Pier" and showing Bournemouth pier
 * One labelled "The Boscombe Pier, built in 1888. Boscombe is a suburb of Bournemouth." Showing Boscombe pier without a theatre (I think before the recent renovation?)
 * One labelled "Bournemouth Pier including the Pier Theatre", showing Bournemouth pier
 * Don't see a problem here lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 12:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Foxes, Rabbits, Badgers, and, indeed, Pumas in Bournemouth Wildlife population
I am getting more than a little frustrated at having my edit to the wildlife section removed. There can be no possible reason for deleting the comments on the Fox, Rabbit, Badger, Frog, Toad, Newt and Bat populations. As to the Pumas, I posted verification as requested, which was then removed on copyright grounds. How can I show that both the National Media and the local Police have agreed that there are Pumas in Bournemouth, if I'm not allowed to qoute the proof that I've been asked to provide ? Would somebody PLEASE check the back edits, and then post an ACCEPTABLE version ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.228.165 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you read the comments posted on your talk page? Original research is not allowed - see WP:OR. Then there's the issue of copyright. Your latest contribution was a copy/paste directly from a press article - see WP:COPYVIO for why this is not acceptable. If you want to use sources such as newspaper articles then please summarise the contents and then give the source as a reference. We are hear to help you, we absolutely want you to contribute, but people do get a little tired with editors who don't seem to take notice of what they are told or suggestions they are given. --Simple Bob (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will attempt to come up with something that beats the filters, or whatever. Perhaps there is a distinction to be drawn between the Wikipedia "full timers" and the average interested observer ? Oh, and I think (personaly) that there is a difference between "Original Research" and what I attempted to do with regard to the Bournemouth Wildlife text Be that as it may, if I need to cite the press artical in order to verify the information, then I am going to have to be fairly creative to avoid any direct qoutes. Copyright is important, I admit, but qouting a verifiable newspaper source surely doesn't infringe it ? Ah well, I still love Wikipedia... i'll try harder. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.228.172 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Some Updates
I believe there is some outdated information in the "Education" section of the wiki. It says "...the four sixth forms.". However, there is a new sixth form, Avonbourne sixth form. I don't know if Avonbounre is actually included in this number, but it's a relatively new sixth form, So could someone check to see if it should be 'five sixth forms' instead of four?
 * Also, should someone add a list of all places of education under the "Education" section? Most primary schools have no wiki pages of their own, so I feel that the bournemouth wiki is the only way to say what schools are in bournemouth. Should we add a list? FranktheTank (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello FranktheTank. The education section is generally more about how the system is structured and run rather than a list of schools. Primary schools in particular aren't considered notable and would only be mentioned if they were the only school in a small village for example. See here. Secondary schools are usually only mentioned with reference to their recent academic acheivements and the section should be written in prose rather than list form which is frowned upon. Thanks for taking an interest in the article though. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S. The four schools with sixth forms, according to the source, are: Bournemouth School, Bournemouth School for Girls, Oakmead College of Technology and St Peter’s Catholic Comprehensive; so no, it doesn't include Avonbourne. If we can find a reliable source that says so, we can insert it into the article.--Ykraps (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

IMAX
I really think the paragraph referring to the Imax/Waterfront building should be removed from the Landmarks section of this article. I appreciate it has dominated the seafront for sometime but it is now clearly being demolished and although there are many thoughts about what constitutes a landmark, surely it has to be visible which the Imax won't be for much longer. If anyone has any ideas how it can be re-worked into another section (Culture or History perhaps) I will gladly consider that.--Ykraps (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It probably belongs in a section on former buildings (with the Winter Gardens perhaps?). Of course it is no longer a landmark but it did get a lot of coverage (Britain's most hated building?) They were working on the inside backwards from the front today, by the way. Britmax (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A former landmarks section would solve the problem but doesn't quite conform to the Manual of style, How to write about settlements. User:Phil Whiston has moved it to the History section so perhaps it can stay there and we can add others such as the Winter Gardens, as you suggest. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * They're certainly not hanging about. I thought it would take months for them to even get started so I wasn't too bothered when I heard demolitition was to begin the day after I inserted the stuff into the article! I was one of those who hated it and wanted to see it torn down but now it's happening I feel a sense of loss. It certainly was imposing.--Ykraps (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I moved it to History since it clearly didn't qualify as a landmark anymore and its building and demolition is now part of the history of Bournemouth, personally I think the history section is the right place. Phil Whiston (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

World War II Damage
The statement "The town escaped heavy bombing during the Second World War" may be questionable. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission record 175 civilians died in the Bournemouth County Borough area due to enemy action, dates covering 1940 to 1944. How much bombing has to take place to be classified as "heavy"? I might be more inclined to phrase it as "The town was not heavily bombed in comparison to a number of major cities and ports".Cloptonson (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point there Cloptonson, I know that Beales dept. store got destroyed, and other areas were hit. Here's a pic.. Might be worth a mention. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 14:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Since writing this I notice the article History of Bournemouth suggests it was not as much targeted bombing as jettison bombing; also without citation states 219 people were killed in Bournemouth in such raids.Cloptonson (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just found all this from a recent post at the Bournemouth Council website:


 * Over 2,200 bombs fell on Bournemouth during World War 2 killing up to 350 civilians and servicemen with nearly 14,000 buildings affected with 75 destroyed, 171 demolished as beyond repair, 675 badly damaged but repairable, over 9,000 slightly damaged and over 3,000 suffering broken glass.
 * The most notable buildings destroyed were the Central Hotel on Richmond Hill with the neighbouring Punshon Memorial Church severely damaged and later demolished, Beales department store on Old Christchurch Rd and the Metropole Hotel.
 * The bomb blew apart the Holdenhurst Rd side of the building with bodies reportedly thrown clear of the wreckage.
 * The ruins of the hotel stood overlooking The Lansdowne in the years after the war, although the Metropole Bars did reopen on the Holdenhurst Rd side, until work began on the construction of Royal London House, the hotel's replacement, in 1955.
 * Royal London House opened in 1958 and housed offices on its upper floors with shops at street level. Today it is probably best known for the KFC restaurant that occupies the corner retail unit.
 * Thousands of Allied troops, including at least 10,000 Canadians, were billeted in Bournemouth during the war with many of the town's hotels requisitioned. The American GIs were particularly popular with local children as they always seemed to have a plentiful supply of chocolate and cigarettes.
 * Thousands of evacuees were also sent to Bournemouth, the middle section of both piers were removed to prevent them being used by invading forces, the shoreline was protected by barbed wire and there were around 5,000 members of the local home guard.
 * --Hillbillyholiday talk 16:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose 'heavy' is subjective so if you want to rewrite the sentence I won't object. Perhaps something along the lines of, " 2,200 bombs were dropped on Bournemouth during the Second World War, killing around 350 people and damaging almost 14,000 buildings. The sea front also incurred great damage when it was fortified against invasion...." I would be wary of adding too much information as WWII is only a five year period in Bournemouth's history.--Ykraps (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Population
Someone keeps adding the figure of over half a million to the infobox of this article. The population of Bournemouth is a long way short of this so I can only assume that they think the population of the surrounding urban area counts in some way. The problem with this is that Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch are independent towns with their own governance and identities. Whether or not you think they should be joined is not the point: the fact is that they are not, and it is inaccurate to suggest that they are. This figure might be useful to people assessing infrastructure needs, etc, but that does not make it relevant to this article, and the South East Dorset Conurbation has its own. I await discussion to form consensus on this issue. Britmax (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Response Okay im not in anyway looking for a silly edit war over this contribution.Southampton has a Metro population of over 6 times because it isn't a estimate of the population of Southampton but Southampton and the surrounding population. Metro Areas in the UK Urban Areas in the UK and please check other citys and towns articles and your learn they all state there population and surrounding residents. The estimates are genuine non mid-term estimates from both ONS and ESPON. Its not as simple as just removing population or anything your removing a fair genuine contribution that features on many towns and citys across the country and ,i dont think its fair that my contribution gets removed when this data is available else were on Wikipedia. If its inaccurate else where then you go change all of the estimates because to be fair this is not just stated on Wikipedia but both on the ESPON PDF 2001 Census and ONS 2011 Census. Don't remove the estimate all together if you dont agree with it change it ,otherwise its obviously vandal. Please also look up the definition for both Metropolitan and Urban Population if this problem persists.thanks 00:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the Bournemouth article we are talking about. You are talking about an area better covered by the South East Dorset Conurbation article. As far as I am concerned these figures should be in the articles for the conurbations but not the individual towns. I know the difference. You don't seem to. Britmax (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Britmax. Note that the unsigned posting above is by User:Concept4life who is a self-confessed sock of the unregistered editor who has been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring over the population figure. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP keeps referring to the “town’s population” as if he hasn’t realised that the figure 183,491 is the population of the borough. I tried to explain this on his talk page but he appears to have deleted it. But even if he does know the difference, I still have a number of problems with the figures he is adding: Firstly they are incorrect and appear to have been lifted from the articles List of urban areas in the United Kingdom and List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom, which are now hopelessly outdated; secondly, the figures are for areas which are either poorly defined or not defined at all; the South-east Dorset Conurbation has a current population of between 379, 078 and 450,000 depending on the definition you use, the ONS for example include New Milton (a town that isn’t even in the same county), [] and the Metropolitan Area is loosely described by Eurostat as UKK21 (Bournemouth and Poole) and parts of UKK22 (Dorset). [] Lastly, like Britmax, I fail to see how they are relevant to an article about the town and borough.--Ykraps (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

...And if anyone has an explanation as to why the figures here fall short of the 383,713 [] total by some 480 residents, I'd be interested to hear it.--Ykraps (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

To correct some of you, i am Female not Male so please stop referring me to "him" or "hes" plus the account concept4life isn't my account otherwise ,i would be using it wouldn't i. If my figures are not correct then Correct them because otherwise your vandalising contributions to wikipedia. London has many articles regarding its population but its overall Metro and Urban population is included in the city's own article like other towns and city's around the UK including Southampton which sets a good example for Bournemouth Article. Recently ,i have used a different IP to edit as ,i have been editing for years and never found such hassle over these less informed users editing this article and please stop referring to me as a man ,i can't express enough. If my contribution is wrong correct it rather than remove the estimates. Please check Southampton article as the metropolitan area is over six times the borough population and is still given good article status. 00:00, 08 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.56.162 (talk)

We are two different contributors on the same IP address. Please will you reevaluate adding this information or similar statistics to the Bournemouth article. To correct you Britmax as it clearly states on my contribution these are the metro and urban areas surrounding the work to travel area of town. 02:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.56.162 (talk)


 * As your English is demonstrably better, I am inclined to believe your claim and indulge you further. As explained above and on the talk page (prior to it being deleted) my main problem with these figures is that the area to which they relate is not clearly defined. If we do not know the area, the figures are meaningless. The articles you are linking to are Wikipedia articles which do not qualify as reliable sources and do not contain any additional citations. The  metropolitan article describes the Bournemouth Metropolitan Area as, “Bournemouth/Poole, Christchurch, Wimborne/Ferndown” and gives the population as 531,000. The urban article decribes the Bournemouth Urban Area also as “Bournemouth/Poole, Christchurch, Wimborne/Ferndown”, plus “New Milton”, and gives the population as 446,266. Are you seeing any problems yet?--Ykraps (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I will start using official information instead of this unreliable information still available on Wikipedia regarding Bournemouth population centers. Does anyone have links to official stats. (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

466,626 is the 2011 estimate given by ONS for "Bournemouth Urban area". (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please don't. Consensus is against adding these figures to the article for the reasons given above and on your talk page, which have now been deleted, but just for the record: The 2011 ONS figure for the Bournemouth Urban Area (M54500) is not 466,626 it is 383,713 as detailed here [] (scroll down to line no. 2092). It comprises Bournemouth (M54502), Burton (M54505), Christchurch (M54503), New Milton/Barton-on-Sea (M54504) and Poole (M54501). However, if you add the individual area populations together you come up 480 short which suggests to me that the ONS is just as confused as the rest of us!--Ykraps (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mistake, those are the 2001 figures, but the fact remains that there is no consensus here.--Ykraps (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

""Please"" can you stop editing 'Bournemouth' article, by removing the urban population of Bournemouth, this statistic is essential in this article and you keep removing without a valid explanation. The urban population is 466,626 and this 'statistic' is featured in many other articles. We both know that the population of the region is much larger than what your trying to make it out to be which doesn't make sense. Please check Reading, Southampton and Portsmouth as they all feature this statistic. I would like to take this further. It's better having a outdated statistic than making it out like Bournemouth doesn't have anyone living outside of it and that's why this is included in many other towns info boxes. (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.114.212 (talk)


 * Several points: 1) The figure you keep adding is not the urban population of Bournemouth, it is the population of the South East Dorset Conurbation 2) This figure is very clearly described in the lead section of the main text, where an explanation is given for what it means - unlike in the infobox, where 'urban' can be interpreted by readers to mean anything 3) You do not currently have any consensus for including this figure in the infobox, so please do not keep adding it. Please see WP:BRD, which explains that editors should not keep changing an article once that change has been reverted once - instead the issue should be discussed 4) The state of other articles is not necessarily a criterion by which changes should be made to this article - see Other stuff exists 5) There may be an argument for including the South East Dorset Conurbation figure in the infobox, but not without explanation next to it, stating what it refers to (maybe the infobox template needs adjusting to allow this). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 82.10.114.212, can I ask what geographical area you think that figure of 466,626 refers to because you seem to think it's the population of the borough of Bournemouth and it is not. The population of the entire borough, as of the 2011 census, is 183,491. This figure includes: the town itself (which has a population of around 10,771), Boscombe, Pokesdown, Springbourne, Southbourne, Westbourne, Northbourne, Kinson, Wallisdown, Littledown, Moordown, Iford, Tuckton, Queen's Park, King's Park, Strouden Park, Redhill, Throop, Muscliffe, Talbot Woods, Branksome Woods, Winton, Charminster and possibly some other areas I've missed. The figure you want to add includes: All that listed above plus Poole (a separate borough and Unitary Authority), Christchurch (a borough in East Dorset), Wimborne and Ferndown (two towns in East Dorset), New Milton and Barton-on-Sea (two towns in Hampshire, which isn't even the same county).--Ykraps (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Area surrounding Bournemouth is much larger than just the town itself. You could say that the City of London is tiny because it only has a population of 7,375 (according to the 2011 Census), but in real terms it wouldn't be realistic because there is a population of over 8 million others, living outside the boundary, which would bring more commuters and tourists compared to a town in the countryside with a relatively similar population. Articles do include the urban area IE City: Southampton Town: Reading, Berkshire and ,I really don't see why the urban population shouldn't be included in this article. I'm not here to start a edit war but please keep your bias to yourself. Many Thanks IP 82.10.114.212 15:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.150.193 (talk)
 * The figure you are quoting is for the city of London [], clearly defined by this map here []. The population of London is 8, 538,700, as shown here [] and defined by this map here []. The City of London is not London, in the same way that Bournemouth town is not the same as Bournemouth. You are quite correct,"The Area surrounding Bournemouth is much larger than just the town itself": The population of the town is 10,771, the population of the area surrounding it (the borough) is 183,491. Did you not read the post above?--Ykraps (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This subject hasn't been revisited in a significant amount of time. Since the last responses from @Britmax and @Ykraps we have since seen the publication of the 2021 census data by the ONS which records the BCP council area as around 400,200 inhabitants, as well as the formation of the BCP unitary authority covering Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. The website citypopulation.de records the Bournemouth Built-up Area Subdivision in 2021 as 200,916 inhabitants. As discussed earlier in this thread it seems odd that the Wikipedia article for Bournemouth, a significant population centre in southern England does not provide recent population statistics in the info box for the former borough neither does it provide the relevant information regarding Bournemouth's urban and metro populations. There is an evident disparity when comparing the Wikipedia articles for other large southern counterpart towns - Southampton, Portsmouth, Reading and Brighton which all cite their respective urban populations in the right hand info box. Furthermore all with the exception of Reading provide a metro population. Brighton's metro population is referenced against the outdated ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom article (of which Bournemouth is also listed). Southampton and Portsmouth cite the entry for South Hampshire, which parallels the existing Wikipedia article for the South East Dorset conurbation. The South East Dorset conurbation article is broadly conterminous with the data regarding the Bournemouth agglomeration referenced by citypopulation.de and to a lesser extent that of the Centre for Cities think tank which defines Bournemouth's PUA (Primary Urban Area) as including the former Dorset Council district of East Dorset which is where the circa 466,000 inhabitants figure is derived from. Understandably there are numerous conflicting sources trying to define Bournemouth's metropolitan population (World Population Review, Macrotrends) but as of last year we now have accurate aggregated data available from the ONS and citypopulation.de. The absence of updated information regarding Bournemouth's population raises a disparity when compared to other towns of equivalence in the region. This information should be rectified to maintain the accuracy and consistency of Wikipedia's content. Aarondgibson (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone come to an article about Bournemouth to find the population of somewhere that isn't Bournemouth? There are other more appropriate articles for the figures you are suggesting, such as Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole and South East Dorset conurbation. Be aware though that you cannot simply add these figures to infobox. An infobox should only reflect what's in the article so you will need to write a reliably sourced portion of text that accurately describes what these figures pertain to. Not just, "...the urban area has a population of x". The Bournemouth population figure as it stands includes: Bournemouth Town, Westbourne, Northbourne, Kinson, Charminster, Talbot Woods, Winton, Moordown, BearCross, the parts of Wallisdown to the north of the A3049 (Wallisdown Rd), Redhill, Muscliffe, Throop, Townsend, Littledown, Boscombe, King’s Park, Queen’s Park, Strouden Park, Pokesdown, Springbourne, Iford, Southbourne, Tuckton, and Wick. In other words, all the places reliable sources say are part of Bournemouth. And I am of the opinion that that is how it should be. --Ykraps (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Jurassic Coast cite
After making a fool of myself with my earlier edits of the cite for the length of the Jurassic Coast, I hope I can regain some of my dignity by trying to explain where I was coming from.

I had visited the http://jurassiccoast.org website earlier, and (still) believe it to be the website of the official body charged by the UK government with looking after that part of the coast. Indeed the Wikipedia Jurassic Coast article cites it as the "Jurassic Coast official website". Granted the pdf file that was originally cited in this article is a tourist leaflet, but the website itself is perfectly legitimate and authoritative when it comes to the information it disseminates.

For those reasons I believe the official website is better than a mere "tourist brochure" and can legitimately be used (indeed certainly should be used) to support facts about the Jurassic Coast. So I would like to suggest replacing the current cite from the UNESCO website (or at least supplementing it) with a page from the jurassiccoast.org website. LL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowland Laddie (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally I have no issues with the website, Perhaps we could use both the unesco site and the JC site, Cheers, – Davey 2010 Talk 21:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There should be no issue with using either site. However, UNESCO gives the length of the coast as 155km (about 96 miles) while the Jurassic Coast website gives the distance as 95 miles (about 153km). That leaves us with the problem of deciding between these two authorities if we want to cite the length of the coast. Michael Glass (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem with the UNESCO website is that it gives no indication of the Jurassic Coast's location in relation to Bournemouth whereas the leaflet at least included a map. I think you will struggle finding a source that says Bournemouth is directly to the east though. I'm pretty sure the Jurassic Coast begins on the western side of Poole Harbour, near Old Harry Rocks, which means the town of Poole is directly to the east. This rather begs the question, should it be in the article at all? Citations should be kept in the main body of the article by the way, not in the lead.--Ykraps (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Nearly every UK site mentioning the length gives it as 95 miles. On google.co.uk, 3200 give 95 miles without mentioning km, 21 give 155 km without mentioning miles and 23 give both. The consensus is definitely 95 miles, so let's go with that.

Lowland Laddie (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Ykraps is correct too. Studland and Poole Harbour lie between the end of the Jurassic coast and Bournemouth, so it seems a bit tourist brochure like to suggest Bournemouth is directly to the east.

Lowland Laddie (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Measurements can't be verified by the number of Google hits. For one thing, they are not independent measurements, but one site copies another.Sometimes it is not possible to decide between sources, as with the article on the geography of the United States.  Michael Glass (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Almost every source had the length of the River Rhine wrong until somebody on Wikipedia uncovered an ancient typo.Charles (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * (EC) The UNESCO website does not say the Jurassic Coast is 155Km long! It says, "...the property comprises eight sections along 155 km of coast", in other words, not all of that 155Km is the Jurassic Coast.--Ykraps (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Official Jurassic Coast website also does not say the Jurassic Coast is 95 miles long! It says, "...The Jurassic Coast is England's first natural World Heritage Site. Covering 95 miles of coastline from East Devon to Dorset," This is just over 2.11km shorter {just over 1.31 miles).  This website appear to do two things. It equates "The Jurassic Coast" with the "World Heritage Site" but the wording does not state that the 95 miles of coastline is continuous (though an accompanying picture does suggest that it goes from Orcombe Point to Old Harry Rocks . The difference between the two measurements (just over 1.36%) is greater than what could be explained by a rounding error so I do not know how to account for it or how to decide between the two measurements. Michael Glass (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No it doesn’t but the other source, which you removed, does. The 95miles (which isn’t continuous) is along a 96 mile stretch of coastline. When I added the reference to the existing sentence, I added the reference which supported the original text. If you wish to use another reference, you will have to change the text so it agrees with the new source. It really is that simple! --Ykraps (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I did not read your previous post properly and assumed we were still discussing the UNESCO citation. The Jurassic Coast site you are now linking to is, to all intents and purposes, the same as the leaflet source (they are both produced by the same people) which you removed because you thought it wasn’t good enough. I expect that the reason it doesn’t say that the Jurassic Coast is continuous, is because it isn’t continuous, it is in eight sections, as it says on the UNESCO site, and the reason UNESCO gives the length as 155Km/96 miles is because their measurement probably includes the gaps between the sections.--Ykraps (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ykraps, your account could explain the difference between the measurements from UNESCO and "The Official Jurassic Coast Website." I just rechecked the map and it shows Old Harry Rocks almost directly south of Bournemouth. (So does Google Maps.) so it appears that the map didn't support the text in that particular detail. Michael Glass (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC) Woops! Bournemouth is to the east of most of the Jurassic Coast. Only the very eastern end happens to be to the south of Bournemouth. My mistake. Michael Glass (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, Bournemouth is not directly to the east of the Jurassic Coast, nor is it directly adjacent in any direction. It is at least 7 miles away so it will be difficult finding a source that supports that particular part of the sentence.--Ykraps (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the text could be changed to say that Bournemouth was directly north of Old Harry Rocks, the westernmost end of the Jurassic Coast. This may be better. Michael Glass (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Michael Glass has changed the text as suggested immediately above. I've just corrected it to read that Old Harry Rocks are the easternmost point, not the westernmost. However the wording as it now stands seems unsatisfactory to me. A line drawn northwards from Old Harry Rocks intersects the coast again at Canford Cliffs, which are part of Poole borough rather than Bournemouth. Bournemouth is really aligned NNE of Old Harry. Similarly the sentence about Bournemouth's own coastline stretching from Sandbanks needs clarifying; Sandbanks, Canford Cliffs and Branksome Chine are all within Poole borough (though the latter two are closer to Bournemouth town centre than to Poole town centre). It seems to me that the original wording about Bournemouth being "directly east" of the Jurassic Coast was probably referring to the situation when England's south coast is viewed as a whole, and as such doesn't seem an unreasonable statement to make. However for technical accuracy, rather than using the debatable word "directly", it may be better to just make a statement of measurement - something like "5 mi SSW of Bournemouth are Old Harry Rocks, the easternmost end of the Jurassic Coast." PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's South West or maybe South South West, mate. The only things south of Bournemouth are a lot of water and France, until Navitus build their turbines, maybe. Britmax (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said SSW. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it do just to say that Bournemouth was north of Old Harry Rocks or should it be north north-east? Michael Glass (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd just as soon remove the sentence altogether. It belongs in the Poole article perhaps but not really this one. What next, "Bournemouth is a little way south of Stonehenge"?--Ykraps (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you've ever driven US Route 50 in Nevada, then Bournemouth is a little way south of Stonehenge, by comparison. To more serious matters, will a non-local know where Old Harry's Rocks are? I think saying something like "Bournemouth is north-east of the Isle of Purbeck, at the edge of the Jurassic Coast" and leave it at that. Leave the specifics to OpenStreetMap. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bournemouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620195158/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/NewsEvents/SpotlightFeatures/SupportingContent/BournemouthBrouchure08.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/NewsEvents/SpotlightFeatures/SupportingContent/BournemouthBrouchure08.pdf
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65XtO4O7E?url=http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=90980&filetype=pdf to http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=90980&filetype=pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620195158/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/NewsEvents/SpotlightFeatures/SupportingContent/BournemouthBrouchure08.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/NewsEvents/SpotlightFeatures/SupportingContent/BournemouthBrouchure08.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://russell-cotes.bournemouth.gov.uk/Collections/Background.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://russell-cotes.bournemouth.gov.uk/Collections/Storyofcollectioncontext.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620195158/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/NewsEvents/SpotlightFeatures/SupportingContent/BournemouthBrouchure08.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/NewsEvents/SpotlightFeatures/SupportingContent/BournemouthBrouchure08.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bsolive.com/orchestra
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.winchester.anglican.org/parish-life/parishes/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bournemouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130925184819/http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/bournemouth/ to http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/bournemouth/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120808194459/http://www.plymouth-diocese.org.uk/thediocese/introduction_dio.ashx to http://www.plymouth-diocese.org.uk/thediocese/introduction_dio.ashx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

New notable people section
Thanks to for taking an interest in the article and for what must've been a substantial amount of work but I have a few issues:
 * The entire section lacks references from reliable, secondary sources.
 * There is no indication how any of these people are connected to Bournemouth. Did they live there, were they born there, did they go there on holiday?
 * The section is very bloated and some of the people in it have a very tenuous connection to Bournemouth. Mary Shelley, although buried in St Peter's graveyard, only visited the town, and is already mentioned in the culture section. Max Bygraves played Bournemouth but the closest he lived was Poole (as far as I know).
 * The manual of style says the section should be written in prose, not bullet points.

This is currently a WP:Good Article but a lack of references coupled with the bullet points could easily see it downgraded. Comments anyone?--Ykraps (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Ykraps

Thank you for the constructive way you have voiced your issues about the new notable people section for Bournemouth to which I have contributed. I spot three main issues:
 * Lack of references – the point here is that I’m mainly providing a link to an article about the notable person and that article will (or should) have the reference to validate what is said. For example when I say that Mr. X is the recipient of the Victoria Cross, the reference for that will be in the main article for Mr. X; or when I say that My Y was a member of this or that 1970’s rock band, the reference for that will be in either (or both) the article on Mr. Y or in the article for this or that 1970’s rock band.
 * Tenuous connections with Bournemouth – a very good point and one which created some challenge as I did the list. I have omitted a number of people who were born or brought up in Bournemouth but who then left the town and made their name elsewhere, particularly when elsewhere is abroad. On the other hand there are people (like Tony Hancock and Virginia Wade) whose connection with Bournemouth is indeed tenuous but whose celebrity is such that finding out they spent some part of their youth in Bournemouth is nevertheless interesting. I accept that once or twice I may have erred on the side of including famous people whose link with Bournemouth is a bit tenuous.
 * List rather than narrative – I agree with the guidance that you refer to that as a whole, an article should be in the form of narrative. But I think this part of a generally narrative article is best provide in the form of a list for these reasons – (1) it is a familiar format in Wikipedia for notable people in other towns and cities and (2) the shape and balance of the contents a list can tell its own story. By that I would point you to the relatively high number of actors, authors and musicians from Bournemouth. Conversely, the number of sportsmen is relatively low. Locals might know if this is so and if so, why.

And, to be candid, an issue of my own – I was a bit concerned about how long the list turned out to be, and if any undue length might weigh down on the rest of the article. I hope it doesn’t and that the subdivision into (currently) ten slots helps sustain its readability.

I too look forward to comments from other readers.

ArbieP (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi ArbieP, thanks for joining the discussion. My concerns are:
 * Even though you have linked to a Wikipedia article, there still needs to be reference in this article so the fact can be verified here. If what you say was acceptable, there could very well be a situation where the reader would have to trawl through multiple articles to find the reference. As an example, supposing the fact that he attended school in Bournemouth wasn’t referenced in the Charles Gray article because the information was taken from the Bournemouth School for Boys article; One would have to click on the link here, read the Charles Gray article, click on the Bournemouth School for Boys article and read that, just to verify a tiny sentence in the Bournemouth article. If the reference in the notable person’s page is reliable, it can be copied across but there ought to be a reference which can be verified in this article.


 * Although the exact wording in the guidelines is, "More developed articles, especially those which have gone through WP:GA and WP:FA, tend to have this section written out as prose", my experience is that this is much more than a tendency. The other reason for having the section written in prose is that it discourages ‘drive-by’ editing. It is much easier to add a name to a list, particularly one which is entirely unreferenced, than to write a sentence that fits into a larger paragraph. If your wondering why I would want to discourage people adding to it; apart from the obvious disruption caused by vandals, good faith edits could also be unwanted. Supposing consensus is for omitting a particular person whose connection to the town is slight, then anonymous editors constantly turn up to add them in.


 * Because there is no requirement to read a list prior to adding to it, you often get repetition, particularly if the list is long like this one, and there are several sections where a particular person might reasonably be found.


 * If you wanted to turn your work into prose, you might be interested in User:Ykraps/Bournemouth residents, which I started some time ago, and has some references. I understand your point about ‘the lad himself’ but why him and not Benny Hill (forgetting for the moment that Benny Hill wasn’t funny)? Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

As an outsider just passing through, may I say that I think this list is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long! I doubt that anyone wanting to know about Bournemouth would take the time to read through the entirety of this. Surely, "notable" means widely known for having achieved something in an important field, not just anyone in any field who has some connection; e.g. "Page 3 girl and glamour model" - really? It seems to me that, for most of the names in this list, Bournemouth may be notable for them, but they are not notable for Bournemouth. Blurryman (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for those interesting comments. Separately I've just become aware of WP:LISTBIO which, I think, covers the issue of a list rather than a narrative. I see the point about providing a reference in the list to each person's connection with Bournemouth, but what happens then is that adding that (for example) they were born in Bournemouth becomes a bit repetitious and wastes space. Blurryman makes a good point, the list is very long. It might shrink to a third of the size by deleting people whose notability is, let's say, a bit thin, but that's still quite a long list; and notability is usually often summarised as having an entry in Wikipedia. Not quite sure where this leaves us, but I look forward to more views.

ArbieP (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Ykraps.

I am keen for my work (1) not to be lost or (2) cause difficulty for the remainder of the article retaining its status as a Good Article. Perhaps a solution lies in the way schools have been handled - some narrative on the main page and a linked list viz List of schools in Bournemouth. I don't know how to create a new linked page like this, but if it were to be done, the main page could perhaps then feature some narrative about the proliferation of actors, authors and musicians, which I'd be happy to do. Comments?

ArbieP (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi ArbieP, That sounds like an excellent solution and there is already precedence, see List of people from Brighton and Hove for example. You can either start the list as a new article or create a draft in your user space. I prefer to do the latter because I am a slow worker and leaving an unfinished article in main space too long leads to it being deleted. But it's entirely up to you. I find the easiest way to create a page is to type it into the search box. To create the article, type the article name (Notable people from Bournemouth, seems to be the style) and search, a message will appear telling you there is no such article and giving you an option to start one, click the red link and away you go. If you want to start a draft, type User:ArbieP/ before the title and do the same. When you are ready, the draft can be moved to mainspace. We can then have a discussion about who to include in a new 'Notable people' section in the Bournemouth article, which can be written in prose and added later with a link to your new page. Best --Ykraps (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Ykraps

Thankyou for your help and guidance. I've begun drafting some narrative for the main article (as well referenced as I can make it) and will post it in a few days time; I'll transform the current list into a new linked page.

ArbieP (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Done

ArbieP (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but there are one or two sentences that aren't supported by there corresponding references. For example, the Juliette Kaplan citation says she played the part of Pearl in production staged in Bournemouth but not that she was born there. I have however found this which says she was born there and later returned to attend drama school. The Alison Newman reference doesn't appear to mention Bournemouth at all. The same problem with the Jack Donnely, Sophie Rundle and Ben Hardy references. The Radclyffe Hall reference cannot be relied on becasue it says Christchurch, Bournemouth. And they are not the same place. It's probably best to remove the Max Bygraves cite which says Poole and leave the one that says Westbourne. Use this url (http://www.allmusic.com/artist/peter-giles-mn0000659952) for Peter Giles as the current link doesn't mention his birthplace, and this one for Michael (http://www.allmusic.com/artist/michael-giles-mn0000465386/biography). Perhaps also specifically state Winton. Cecil Noble VC and Seagrim VC are not mentioned as hailing from Bournemouth in their references, and the Birbeck one says Edinburgh. The Bailey bridge article doesn't say Donald lived in Southbourne.--Ykraps (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Ykraps

Please feel free to update, amend, correct or otherwise improve the notables section. In particular with your local knowledge you are likely to be better placed than me to know what properly counts as Bournemouth and what does not.

ArbieP (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look sometime over the next couple of weeks.--Ykraps (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Bournemouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65XusNzIW?url=http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PlanningBuildings/ConservationDesignTrees/Conservation/historyofbournemouth.aspx to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PlanningBuildings/ConservationDesignTrees/Conservation/historyofbournemouth.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100507011315/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/atlas/ to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/atlas/
 * Added tag to http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/lgbce/all-reviews/south-west/dorset/bournemouth-unitary-authority-ua/bournemouth_5659-5263__e__.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830010801/http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/rural/rural-atlas/atlas-maps/107.jpg to http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/rural/rural-atlas/atlas-maps/107.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003103023/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120216160131/http://www.england-in-particular.info/rivers/rs-bourn.html to http://www.england-in-particular.info/rivers/rs-bourn.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003103023/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130505161825/http://www.swo.org.uk/state-of-the-south-west-2011/economy/economic-performance/gross-value-added/ to http://www.swo.org.uk/state-of-the-south-west-2011/economy/economic-performance/gross-value-added/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620195111/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PeopleLiving/BournemouthStatistics/Themes/Economy/EconomicBulletinFeb2012.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PeopleLiving/BournemouthStatistics/Themes/Economy/EconomicBulletinFeb2012.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.visit-dorset.com/dbimgs/Value%20of%20Tourism%20-%20Dorset%20%26%20Districts%2011.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129054402/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocracy/Councillors/CouncillorCommitteeMeeting/EconomyTourismOverviewScrutinyPanel/2011/10/05/Minutes/111005.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocracy/Councillors/CouncillorCommitteeMeeting/EconomyTourismOverviewScrutinyPanel/2011/10/05/Minutes/111005.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151008110912/http://rnli.org/findmynearest/beach/Pages/Bournemouth-West-Beach.aspx to http://rnli.org/findmynearest/beach/Pages/Bournemouth-West-Beach.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620195247/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PeopleLiving/BournemouthStatistics/Themes/Economy/BRESABI/BRES-2011-provisional.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PeopleLiving/BournemouthStatistics/Themes/Economy/BRESABI/BRES-2011-provisional.pdf
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6DRcMnlhS?url=http://russell-cotes.bournemouth.gov.uk/Collections/Background.asp to http://russell-cotes.bournemouth.gov.uk/Collections/Background.asp
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6DRcZLEKS?url=http://russell-cotes.bournemouth.gov.uk/Collections/Storyofcollectioncontext.asp to http://russell-cotes.bournemouth.gov.uk/Collections/Storyofcollectioncontext.asp
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65uWs3x7N?url=http://www.bsolive.com/orchestra to http://www.bsolive.com/orchestra
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119053450/http://aucb.ac.uk/news/exhibition/aucb-helps-launch-arts-sea-festival/ to http://aucb.ac.uk/news/exhibition/aucb-helps-launch-arts-sea-festival/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620194750/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PlanningBuildings/ConservationDesignTrees/cdtfiles/ListedBuildings.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PlanningBuildings/ConservationDesignTrees/cdtfiles/ListedBuildings.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130820193424/http://www.bournemouthballoon.com/balloon-facts.aspx to http://bournemouthballoon.com/balloon-facts.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130820194400/http://www.bournemouthballoon.com/about.aspx to http://bournemouthballoon.com/about.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111152121/http://www.thisisdorset.net/news/tidnews/9833565.New_sponsor_deal_for_Cherries__stadium/ to http://www.thisisdorset.net/news/tidnews/9833565.New_sponsor_deal_for_Cherries__stadium/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002031202/http://www.sdrt.org.uk/trust/resources/resource.php?resource=SDJRHistory to http://www.sdrt.org.uk/trust/resources/resource.php?resource=SDJRHistory
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527135824/http://www.bournemouthairport.com/bohweb.nsf/Content/New-Terminal-Development-Overview to https://www.bournemouthairport.com/bohweb.nsf/Content/New-Terminal-Development-Overview
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003103023/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003103023/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003103023/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/ChildrenEducation/InformationforParentsCarers/EarlyYears/AppendixA.pdf
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6ELbTODks?url=http://www.salisbury.anglican.org/whos-who/diocese to http://www.salisbury.anglican.org/whos-who/diocese
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620195158/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/NewsEvents/SpotlightFeatures/SupportingContent/BournemouthBrouchure08.pdf to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/NewsEvents/SpotlightFeatures/SupportingContent/BournemouthBrouchure08.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bournemouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003103354/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocracy/MayorofBournemouth/Mayor-MakingandAnnualCivicService.aspx to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocracy/MayorofBournemouth/Mayor-MakingandAnnualCivicService.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120909030137/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/LeisureCultureLibraries/Parks/Bournemouths-Countryside/LocalNatureReserves/TurbaryCommonLocalNatureReserve.aspx to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/LeisureCultureLibraries/Parks/Bournemouths-Countryside/LocalNatureReserves/TurbaryCommonLocalNatureReserve.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502031802/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PeopleLiving/BournemouthStatistics/Themes/Economy/Economy.aspx to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PeopleLiving/BournemouthStatistics/Themes/Economy/Economy.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003102351/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/LeisureCultureLibraries/SeafrontBeaches/PierAttractions/BoscombePier.aspx to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/LeisureCultureLibraries/SeafrontBeaches/PierAttractions/BoscombePier.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523124520/http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/StreetsTransport/PublicTransport/LocalTravel.aspx to http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/StreetsTransport/PublicTransport/LocalTravel.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Billion
We have an editor insisting that the quantity 10^9 be rendered as 1000million instead of simply 1billion, arguing that billion is ambiguous, and reverted attempts by several editors over many years to change this. Billion indeed has an obsolete meaning of "a million millions" but that meaning has been almost entirely unknown in careful writing for decades, and MOS:NUMERAL states that on enwp billion unambiguously means "a thousand millions". Billion is therefore not ambiguous for our purposes, and there is no reason to use the awkward 1000million.

Our article World population does things appropriately. It names millions as millions and billions as billions, though at one point saying More refined estimates were 600 to 1000million in the early 1800s and 800 to 1000million in the 1840s, which is a perfectly appropriate exception, just as in a table column headed Revenue (millions) you might see, for example, values of 340, 670, 980, and 1200 – the last representing 1.2billion.

Thoughts, please. Paging, who has a billion (short-scale billion) style guides on his shelf. EEng 21:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is already addressed at MOS:NUMERAL. Billion isn't ambiguous in English (not for about a century now), or we'd have to change this in many thousands of articles, and we'd be very well aware of the issue, with MOS:NUM having a section about this in particular, instead of a one-liner declaring the meaning on WP to be '1000 million'. Long-scale numbering isn't used much except in French and Spanish, and not even in all the places these languages dominate, but mostly in Europe itself.  English Wikipedia doesn't really care that billion in English is a "false friend" cognate to billion in French.  There are thousands of words like this.  Also, "1,000 million" isn't very idiomatic in English anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well put as usual, though I'd substitute "50 years" for "a century". EEng 00:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Well that sounds like original research to me. These five books [] [] [] [] [] all specifically use 1,000 million and were published between 2003 and 2011. This article is written in British English and in British English, a billion is still an ambiguous term. I see no good reason to change things here other than to be deliberately antagonistic. --Ykraps (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Your examples do nothing to show that billion is ambiguous; for that you'll need to find recent (i.e. last 30 years) uses of billion to mean 10^12 instead of 10^9. I'd be interested to see that. All that your examples show is that some people, somewhere, still use this archaic thousand million style. (And, truth be told, they don't even show that: most of them give a series of figures such as 100 million, 760 million, 1200 million where the units are simply being kept consistent.)
 * The real story is in this ngram showing relative usage, in British English, of billion and thousand million. The data could not more perfectly confirm what we've been saying. Beginning in the 1970s use of thousand million dropped off precipitously so that it's now almost completely unused, while use of billion skyrocketed. (To see, in fact, how clear-cut and sudden the drop off is, here's just the thousand million graph alone .) I repeat that this these graphs are for British usage only.
 * The Cambridge style guide says in British English a billion used to be a million million (1,000,000,000,000) but is now aligned with the American billion (1,000,000,000). Period, full stop, no equivocating. Oxford's guide  merely says When discussing large numbers in text, it is fine to use k/m/bn as shorter ways of spelling out 1,000/1,000,000/1,000,000,000 (or writing out ‘one thousand’/‘one million’/‘one billion’), as long as you are consistent throughout the document – no mention of the long-short issue at all, just like we don't provide horse-and-buggy parking at places of public accommodation and there's no smoking on planes. The 21st century is here now, even in Britain.
 * Your idea that billion is ambiguous is untenable. EEng 02:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The real story is that your ngrams show nothing. They only show that the word billion was used more than the term 1000 million. They don't and can't show that billion was used as a replacement for 1000 million. According to your logic, this shows that since the 1960s a million has meant a thousand.


 * In any event I’m not arguing about the common usage of the term billion, I’m arguing that:
 * Billion is ambiguous (Of course it is. That's why style guides constantly feel the need to define it)
 * That 1,000 million is a perfectly acceptable way of expressing 1,000,000,000 even in this day and age
 * There is nothing in MOS that prohibits the use of the term 1,000 million
 * And that there is no good reason to change it, other than some people just don’t like it
 * --Ykraps (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll pass over your unserious points. Can you show any usage at all, in the last 30 years, of billion to mean 10^12? That's the only test as to whether it's ambiguous. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 10:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's just what you'd like the test to be. Another test could be whether reliable sources say it's ambiguous.[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []. Enjoy the last one; it's a 2008 book that claims that in Britain, billion means 10^12. Now, do you have a source that states that a billion is not ambiguous, because your insulting behaviour is becoming tiresome.
 * Since the first five of your links I randomly checked are a Bangladeshi conference, three pop books called Quantify!: A Crash Course in Smart Thinking, An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better, and The Story of English in 100 Words, and someone's unpublished manuscript, I think further discussion will be unproductive. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you haven’t contributed much to the discussion: an ngram that doesn’t show what you thought it did, a few lines from WP:MOSNUM which don’t support your position on the use of 1,000 million, a style guide that feels the need to define a billion, and lots of thinly veiled insults. I have produced WP:Reliable sources that categorically state that billion is ambiguous, and that 1,000 million is perfectly acceptable in modern English. There is no problem here other than the one you are trying to create and it is telling that, despite your WP:Canvassing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, you have failed to get consensus for your proposed changes.--Ykraps (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As if the change was in the hands of some omnipotent authority who just flicked a switch and, yea, verily, it was so. Just a look around proves that this is not the world we live in. Britmax (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

More in-depth population column that includes town and borough.
I am not a Wikipedia expert, however within the population column, I am trying to be in-depth and include the 'Town' population and 'Local Authority' population like these Reading, Berkshire, Brighton or Woking. I have tried and failed to find ONS statistics so if anyone finds time to edit and add this, would be appreciated. Especially after the recent council merger. Many Thanks - arofun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.228.187 (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi arofun, the population figure already includes the population of the town and borough district. The new unitary authority governs the borough districts of Christchurch, Poole and Bournemouth and you can find how many people fall under its jurisdiction by adding the figures from all three areas (available on the ONS website). I can see how a figure like that belongs in the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole article but I am struggling to see the relevance of it in this one. After all, Bournemouth is also governed by Parliament, should we include the population of the UK also?--Ykraps (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

New photos
Some of the photos should be updated, namely the one in the infobox that shows the now demolished Waterfront building and the one of the exterior of Pier Theatre, which has since been converted into an indoor rock climbing centre. SonnikuSan (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Borough status

 * The district with borough status was abolished in 2019 so should be in the former boroughs category. Bournemouth Borough Council deals with the former council that was rescoped in 2010 to be about the council but now abolished it could be changed back.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, The Borough Council was abolished but Bournemouth's borough status was retained through an act of parliament, passed on 20 March 2019.[] Poole was also granted borough status at the same time.--Ykraps (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S I moved this conversation to its own section for clarity. I hope you don't mind.--Ykraps (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Charter trustees are set up when a district with borough or city status are abolished to retain things like mayors, the borough its self along with the council have still been abolished. Since Christchurch became a parish there was no charter trustees formed but Bournemouth and Poole have them.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The source says that the town's Borough Charter status was retained through an act of parliament. To the best of my knowledge, a Borough Charter grants borough status so I'm having difficulty interpreting it any other way. However, the source also refers to the former Borough of Bournemouth so you may well be right. Either way, I don't feel strongly about it.--Ykraps (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes the borough charter was retained when the borough was abolished, that's the point of a charter trustees see Charter trustees. If all boroughs that were abolished  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)