Talk:North Pier, Blackpool

Main image of the pier
A new image of the pier was added in April by TR Wolf. I think that the image added, File:Blackpool (3).png was probably an improvement over the previous one, File:BlackpoolNorPie.JPG. However, I'm not convinced it's the best one for the article. It's a lovely image, and kudos to TR Wolf for taking it—I'd happily hang it on my wall. I'm just not sure it adds the most encyclopaedic value to the article. I find it very difficult to make out anything other than a sunset and a silhouette of the kiosk. It's not (to me) obviously Blackpool's North Pier. I tried to replace it with File:Blackpool pier.jpg which I thought was an improvement; you can see the length of the pier and some of the structural details, although there is some over exposure. There are a few more available in Commons:Category:North Pier, Blackpool. The one I added is the one I think is the best, but I'm happy to hear alternatives. It would probably be reasonable to include the sunset one further down in the article, particularly as the article expands, and I think it would be nice to have a close up of the kiosk, too. Here are some of the possibilities:

I'd be interested to hear what anyone else thinks. Beloved Freak  16:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For the top of the artilce I'd go for this view from the top of the tower as it shows the whole pier clearly. NtheP (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Whichever you guys think is best. Perhaps my sunset photo could be somewhere further down the article. Your choice :) As for my choice for the top of the page, I'd say NtheP's aerial shot was best, that's a great shot! TR Wolf (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For me, the most encyclopedic image is the one from the top of the tower, as suggested by NtheP.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I missed that one somehow (now added to the gallery above), but I agree the one from the tower probably works best. I'll go ahead and change it now, as we seem to have agreement, although the discussion can obviously continue. I'm hoping to expand this article at some point, hopefully later this summer, and as it gets longer there will of course be room for more images.-- Beloved Freak  19:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not the only one Belovedfreak, I've got it on my to do page, and have some plans to get some older images in too. I just need to get the impetus to do it :D  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear! Perhaps we could collaborate. I've seen a couple of books in the library that might help. -- Beloved Freak  15:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Library books would be great, and so would collaboration. As I mentioned, I've found some decent online sources and left them on my to do page. As you'll probably notice I plan to get all three piers up to at least good status, I don't see any reason we can't do it.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 07:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Repetition
The first two paragraphs of the section "Recent changes" need some further work. At the moment, they seem to be two separate paragraphs each of which summarises one source; as a result, they conflict and repeat information in a number of areas.

The last sentence of "Recent changes" should be moved to, and combined with, the last sentence of "Ownership", or perhaps all three mentions of admission price should be combined somewhere else. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't be surprised, my eyes often start to wander at the end of an article! I'll pick this up on Monday, when I get a chance. Cheers  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 21:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite Monday, but done.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good! The copyedit is now complete. When you have a little time, you should probably mark the completed items on the remaining part of the GA review. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Liquidation section
There's a recently added section of the article "Liquidation" detailing court action brought forward, and then withdrawn, against the company that currently owns or runs the pier. Although it seems to be well sourced, it may be undue WP:RECENTISM (or even fall under WP:NOTNEWS) given the actual impact of these events (apparently precisely no impact at all) on the pier or its operation. Perhaps worth turning into a sentence or two elsewhere in the article, rather than a separate section. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that. I think it could be brought down to a sentence or so and incorporated into the ownership section. I was hoping to do so at some point, but haven't got round to it yet! Feel free to beat me to the punch Worm TT( talk ) 11:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Indian Pavilion Confusion
- This reference says that the 1,500 seat, Indian Pavillion was designed by Eugenius Birch. The original designs he produced were rejected as Mcrea wanted an Indian themed building. Mcrea and Birch visited the Indian Office for inspiration and they decided to base the building on the Temple of Binderabund.

Also things that could be in-putted into the article from this source:
 * 1) Special attention was paid to the acoustics when designing it.
 * 2) At the back of the stage was an inscription in Arabic which read 'the hearing falls in love before eye vision'.
 * 3) It opened in 1877
 * 4) Cost £40,000
 * 5) Adjoining the pavilion was a tea room.
 * 6) When it was constructed the square kiosks were replaced with hexagonal kiosks.

I don't have the motivation to look into this but I hope someone else does! ツStacey (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Fire 1985 or 1995?
states that there was a fire at 11pm on 1st June 1995 which caused £50,000 worth of damage. Vince Hill and the pier manager (Philip Lockwood) fought the fire. - Is this the same fire that has already been mentioned but in 1985?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on North Pier, Blackpool. 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/20120125000254/http://www.blackpoolgrand.co.uk/information/6/266/Blackpool-Theatres.htm to http://www.blackpoolgrand.co.uk/information/6/266/Blackpool-Theatres.htm

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) 20:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)