Jump to content

Talk:Skegness

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSkegness is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 4, 2021.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2020Peer reviewNot reviewed
September 14, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Skegness pier

[edit]

Much though I love Skeggie (I'm off there for the bank holiday in a couple of weeks), I think it ought to be pointed out to potential visitors that the pier is now considerably shorter than 1843 feet. About 1750 feet shorter, if I remember correctly. There is a reason why pictures of the pier online only show the amusements on the landward side! --Andrew Norman 16:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Style & content

[edit]

Council

[edit]

Amended the town council details to include a table for easier reading. There was reference to a Lib Dem councillor previously, however the official results card (linked to as reference) from ELDC shows that there were no Lib Dem councillors elected in 2011. I think this arose because Cllr Binch is a Lib Dem, but did not stand as such in 2011, instead choosing not to display a party affiliation.

Advertising on this page?

[edit]

In the Skegness Today section Royal Renaissance Hotel seems to be advertising supplying its phone number.

The Royal Renaissance Hotel is family run and committed to providing a professional service from the moment you arrive, ensuring that you will visit Skegness and the Royal Renaissance time and time again. Please telephone 01754 76XXXX for more information.--

I don't think this is appropriate for an Encylopedia

Neutrality and factuality

[edit]

This is concerning "Skegvegas" and the "rising chav population". This sounds to me like an un-neutral point of view, and there are certainly no citations to back up the claims. What's the general consensus on this? (go easy on me, I'm still not sure how to go about things yet) Blacksilkandy 17:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Skegvegas" Is a comical term made up by the recent youth of skegness, due to the similarities to Las Vegas. I.E entertainment based resort with fruit machines and oversized night life. Also like Las Vegas, Skegness is a holiday resort. Spookster809 14:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the term 'Chav' is recent, the underclass it represents has been around for some time. Skeg and its surrounding areas of population has always been largely populated by a continuous infusion by chavs who move to the promised land. However, there seem to be a noticeable increase in 'Chavvus Estatus' over the last few years, with the new estates being largely populated by scum who visit and find its climes suitable. Certainly Chapel St. Leonards is suffering greatly since I grew up there some 20 years past, lots of youth/drug problems. I think skeg is much the same by all accounts. By the way, I also know of many social workers who refer to Skeg as 'Paedo-on-sea'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.52.194 (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, 'chav' relates to a 'working class person who wears casual sports clothes'. I'm not sure about 'rising population', but given that Skegness has been officially recognised as one of the most deprived seaside towns in the country, I suppose it may be fair to surmise (though we can't be sure) that there is a large 'chav' population. There is also however a large elderly population too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.95.233 (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Travel guide banner

[edit]

I've read the article carefully, and am not sure that the {{Travel guide|date=July 2008}} flag is justified. Skegness is a resort. (According to Bob Monkhouse the Last Resort), and if you said nothing about the hotels, slot arcades, and Pier then the whole atmosphere of the town would be unrepresented. The discussion of the shopping areas is a little idiosyncratic, but a sentence or two explaining that normal shopping cannot be in the High Street because of the preponderance of tat shops would sort that out.

I think that the addition of a bit of detail about the permanent population (link the schools to ofstead results, local sport or social clubs, a bit more history such as market days, WW2, etc.) would be opportunity enough to remove the banner.--Brunnian (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Skegness-postcard.jpg

[edit]

Image:Skegness-postcard.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date?

[edit]

I don't understand {{Out of date|date=July 2010}} on the main page. I'm sure it may be true, but I have no idea what bit the complainant was referring to. I'd like to resolve the issues, whatever they might be. Can anyone explain?

I think it is stopping the article being rated 'B' or even 'GA'. There are far worse GA articles.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Skegness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Skegness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people

[edit]

The notable people section looks truly awful, plus it includes many non notables, Noswall59 appears to be doing a good job with Skegness I will leave it with him. --Devokewater (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Noswall59 it looks very tidy now, all the non notables have been removed. --Devokewater (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Frogges" and other non relevant material

[edit]

Folks, this is a featured article today, and it is not a bad one. Please do not put irrelevant material on Frogs in Old English on top. If it is related to the town, then put it in the text with an explanation why. I carried out a very minor non content related edit, and got two bots questioning my motive ... really wikipedia, really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.8 (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it's Okay now --164.52.225.30 (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

farther east??

[edit]
The original Skegness was situated farther east at the mouth of The Wash.

Was it drowned? Or does "east" here mean south? —Tamfang (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worst WWII air raid

[edit]

The figures on casualties on the worst air raid on 24 October 1941 are disputable. The 'twelve residents killed' given on this page are cited to a work published in 1996. However a local history, 'Lincolnshire and Newark in the [World] Wars' by Fred Hurt, published 1994, eight years later, gives a higher figure of 14 killed including 10 servicemen (leaving a balance of four civilians) and 27 injured.Cloptonson (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of comparative statistics in the demography section

[edit]

Back in January, DragonofBatley decided to remove some of the comparative statistics from the demography section, specifically those comparing Skegness's ethnic makeup with the ethnic makeup of England as a whole. They justified the rationale with an edit summary asserting that the article "Already states population and doesn't need to be compared to England's whole makeup as no other article has these figures". I missed this edit at the time -- I think this occurred when the article was on the main page and was getting the usual vandalism and minor tweaks by passers by. Yesterday, I realised it had been removed and reinserted the missing text; I explained my rationale: restoring deleted text - must have been removed some time ago; it makes sense to compare a place with the national picture, for those not familiar with the demography of the UK). DragonofBatley then removed it again with the edit summary: no it doesn't because if that was the case each town and city article would be including this. To avoid the potential for edit warring, I thought I would seek discussion here. I believe that the comparative statistics should be restored to the article for several reasons:

  • It makes a great deal of sense to compare the demography of a place with the national or regional demographics, otherwise unfamiliar readers will not have any context against which to understand it.
  • Contrary to DragonofBatley's claims, comparative statistics are widely used in high-quality UK articles about settlements, such as Ashton-under-Lyne, Bath, Somerset, Navenby, Sale, Greater Manchester and Sheerness. Check out the demography sections and you will see in-line or tabular comparisons between the settlements' populations and the regional/national picture. This is hardly surprising, because our guidelines on writing about UK settlements (at WP:UKTOWNS#Demography) advocate using comparative statistics.
  • This article has been through the Featured Article process, which means it has been subject to thorough review by multiple experienced content editors who have approved it as meeting a strict set of content criteria and essentially being one of Wikipedia's best articles. The other examples I just gave are also Featured Articles. That does not mean that we can't have a discussion about significant changes, but it does mean that a consensus has been built to include this material and so the onus is on the person proposing the change to overturn that consensus here or more generally at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography.

So, DragonofBatley and any other editors are welcome to chime in, but I believe I have put forward my case for keeping the content. I am about to restore the deleted passages (for which consensus exists) pending the outcome of this discussion and any change to that consensus. Dragon: please discuss this here rather than reverting again. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I think what needs discussing is what exactly is encyclopaedic about comparing a small town like Skegness and towns like the aforementioned with England? What exa DragonofBatley (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the reason for these ethnicity comparisons with England? What is it about Englands ethnicity national statistics picture we are trying to paint that isn't then done on all American France Italy Wales Ireland etc cities and towns for ethnicity? I am not against keeping demographic data but then going into a nationwide comparing it to other parts of England clogs up the page with irrelevant information. There's plenty in Manchester Cardiff Leeds Bradford Preston Blackburn etc explaining how their Asian African etc community came about and their religion etc. Point is Skegness is a seaside town not a major town or city. That type of thing would be best placed in the cities and towns with major ethnicity comparisons then Skegness with less then 1%. Your towns and cities mentioned are urban and border major cities and towns. Skegness doesn't it's a very small area miles from any major centres and so that part is irrelevant. It's not a case of WP:TopicBan OR WP:Owning. It's a case of removing irrelevant information which doesn't enhance it but clogs it up and uses a very unhelpful demographic information. Do it for all major cities and towns even conurbations but for small non major places it's best left out of it. Unless a source or the council uses them to enhance living there through demographic comparing DragonofBatley (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale:, @Eopsid:, @PamD:, @Blue Mean Square: DragonofBatley (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained the reason for the ethnicity comparisons; like any demographic comparison, it allows a reader to get a sense of how far the town's population reflects the country's demographic. I would advocate doing this for every settlement. I am struggling to see any reason why this is a problem – if you're going to tell readers that a place has X% of people with Y characteristics, then many are naturally going to ask how this compares with the rest of the country, otherwise the numbers are quite meaningless. Why is it that you feel so strongly about doing this for ethnicity and not for any of the other statistical measure used (e.g. religion, health, age, economic activity, employment, industry worked in, housing type)?
Also, you've obviously not checked the articles I listed above: Navenby is a small village of c. 700 people and Sheerness is a town in Kent smaller than Skegness and also by the sea. Both make use of statistical comparisons, not just for ethnicity, but many other demographic facts.
Anyway, if you feel that this is more of a site-wide issue, then discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities; those are useful places to start a discussion about wider issues, rather than this talk page. But you'll need to form a consensus to start removing comparative statistics from articles like this. —Noswall59 (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
These statistics are provided by the census though I'm not sure how much info should be added per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Noswall, the statistics should be in the article, it might be unhelpful to DragonofBatley but extremely helpful to others. Size of the settlement is irrelevant. Esemgee (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Esemgee: be careful with assumptions as that can mean what you think is actually not true. Which in this case is not. And as per Crouch Swales mention this would likely fall under WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. I don't have issues with census data but it should be kept simplified then over the top paragraphs. So maybe be more on the fence then assuming perhaps something not quite true? Yeah? DragonofBatley (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming nothing, I am stating a fact. It is you who need to take advice from editors like Noswall59 who have experience of writing good articles not me who needs to be "more on the fence". I think I have corrected your edits before now. Esemgee (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] started a consensus for two articles included is this so head there DragonofBatley (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DragonofBatley, to clarify, you've started a discussion there. In broad terms, reaching a consensus means establishing broad agreement. On Wikipedia, we have policies on this (WP:Consensus) and it's essential to the way we edit here; it means reaching a policy-based settlement over an issue with the editing community. You really need to familiarise yourself with those policies. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
And the link above should be to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Doncaster_and_Skegness_issues, not to the mobile version. PamD

In general, if something is a Featured Article (and promoted less than a year ago, too) it's best to leave well alone rather than diving in and making changes according to ones personal preferences. Checking confirms that the comparison with England figures was there at the time it became featured, and other editors have worked on the article since then without changing that section. There's plenty elsewhere in the encyclopedia which needs to be changed, updated, better sourced, etc: please concentrate on that rather than changing an article which has already undergone a thorough level of scrutiny by experienced and picky editors. But if you're really unhappy with an aspect of a featured article, discuss it in the talk page. PamD 16:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many places with statistics on age, ethnicity and other sociodemographics. These have to be compared to the English or UK average for them to be meaningful, as to whether the sociodemographics deviate for the country as a whole. The one thing I would suggest is that this data is placed in a table. It is normal to index such statistics, where 100 = national average. Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Skegness&oldid=1210400271"