Jump to content

Talk:Ilfracombe

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

Tourism

[edit]

I have just removed an awful lot of irrelevant, unencyclopedic content from this article that has been added gradually by one or more people since the beginning of August. I will continue to watch the progress of this page in case it gets added back. -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"When the tourism market faltered following the end of the victorian era local hotelliers took advantage of people living in major urban areas who wanted a better life and invited them to the town with cheap accommodation; unfortunately when they arrived here there were no jobs for the migrants.


This influx of unwaged people gave Ilfracombe a number of social problems, particularly relating to crime and unemployment. In the last 5 years these have been addressed by bringing in better national government policies...and the first rural projects for Surestart to help the families with young children, and since 2004 the neighbourhood management Programme ( Transform)have started to make the difference."

The above text does not really add anything new to the text it replaced, infact it actually omits certain details so I don't see why there was a need to delete the previous content. I have tried to mix the two up little, hopefully all parties will be satisfied. Moz 17:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"When the tourism market faltered following the end of the Victorian era local hoteliers took advantage of people living in major urban areas who wanted a better life and invited them to the town with cheap accommodation; unfortunately when they arrived here there were no jobs for the migrants."

Additionally this part doesn't make any sense. It's maybe okay to say that hoteliers took advantage of people living in major urban areas (if we do have some evidence for that?) but then to say there were no jobs when they arrived doesn't make sense at all. How can the hoteliers offering jobs be the reason for this inward migration if there are supposedly not jobs here in the first place?

Again I will try and mix and match the two articles but it seems more justifiable to say that there was simply an inward migration of people of poor background than to give a reason for it which is much harder to prove.Moz 17:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add that tourism didn't really decline after the Victorian era. Tourism peaked in the early 50's. In 1951 on Saturday's during August over 10,000 people came to the town on the train, presumably mainly holiday makers. At that time there were also people coming by car and boat too. I have this info in a book on Ilfracombe's history, claimed to be from train ticket records. Also the influx of labour from urban areas was because there were jobs available, it was only when the tourism industry declined in the 1960's when cheap foreign package holidays emerged that many of these workers became redundant. I learnt this whilst doing a GCSE history and researching this in the Ilfracombe museum archives.snottage 20:53, 06 May 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snottage (talk • contribs)
If you have a reference source that will allow you to improve the article, please do so! -- EdJogg (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Churches

[edit]

A section on churches in ilfracombe would be a good addition and is requested.

The link "[8] Christian Fellowship Church, Ilfracombe" is fine but it needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article as this is not a directory. [[User:Definition12|Moz14:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"In 2006 major leisure industry developments by John Fowler, a local holiday camp operator are expected to shift the local economy back to tourism."

John Fowler

[edit]

Although I admit John Fowler's holiday park probably employs the most people of any tourist resort in Ilfracombe, the sentence makes it look like John Fowler's redevelopment of his facilities will solely shift the economy back to tourism. It will help, but it's rather the local governments renewed commitment to the redevelopment of the economy toward tourism that will cause this shift.

In all honesty though, the major industry in Ilfracombe has always been tourism, and won't be shifted back, it's already there. JHJPDJKDKHI! 02:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the perception is that tourism is the dominant industry in Ilfracombe, detailed economic research commissioned by the Community alliance completed by consultants Terence ORourke in 2005 demonstrated that light engineering was dominant with 1200 people being employed in the sector v c 1000 in Tourism and hospitality industry, and then there are health & social services. The outcome was a surprise and showed how poor the tourism market had been allowed to become. It also demonstrates the impact of the "new" tourism scene of surfing...there are more 2x more hospitality beds in Woolacombe than in Ilfracombe ! John Steer-Fowlers strategy is to develop the convention market, by improving the quality of their chalets etc. They have sucessfully hosted a major Roman Catholic convention for many years and their own market research gives them confidence to invest £20million in their site, ( john Fowler was cited by the Financial times several years since as the fastest growing private company in the UK ) FrankPearson 20:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

I removed some of the information below.

"Humdrum conumdrum street drumming band and many live musicians who give life to the Farmers' markets held in the lantern centre.

- Sport ... Ilfracombe Football Club, Golf Club (110 years old), Rugby Club, Tennis Club, Bowls Club, Table tennis Club, Swimming Club, Cricket Club as well as the Yacht club and for the smaller boats Bicclescombe park model boat club as well as Sea Cadets, Brownies, Scouts.... "

I don't know much about 'humdrum conumdrum street drumming bands' but I don't think they are very notable. The farmers market is though, expanding on that with an apprpriate link would be great but you really need to register.

I will try and comment about the rest abit later but would appreciate if you expand on the cricket, yacht club information.

Cheers JHJPDJKDKHI! 05:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Lighthouse

[edit]

According to the BBC the oldest lighthouse in the UK is atFlamborough Head on the wash. I will put ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] but will remove it if you can't find anything. JHJPDJKDKHI! 08:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The "claim" for the oldest lighthouse is based on data in several books and pamphlets which relate to the building on Lantern hill (aka St Nicholas chapel) , at the throat of the harbour, being built in 1321 with a beacon on its tower acting as a guidance to mariners; it is worth noteing the next cove to Ilfracombe, Hele, was home to smugglers and wreckers and there needed to be a reference point for those at sea. The beacon was not maintained by Trinity House, nor any other national organisation so has never featured in their data. frank Pearson

Major reorganisation

[edit]

I've moved the article round quite a bit and have found that it is missing a vital part - a geography section. The section could also include the geology section which is a bit lacking. Jack 03:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update of the transport section I don't feel has been an improvement, it's now less structured. Photographs throughout need to be more strategically placed to reflect what each section refers to, for eg. the section on shopping would suitibly be placed next to the picture of the highstreet. I also think the article looks alot better if the pictures are spaced out, ie- they don't all hug one side of the screen, there are alot of good articles on wikipedia that don't have their pictures on one side of the screen. JHJPDJKDKHI! 04:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New article on the Ilfracombe Branch Line will be created later today, and the Transport section edited to suit. Wikipedia level 3 and 4 headings are too similar to cope with the paragraph structure as it is without the extra italicising I added.
EdJogg 10:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with images on the left is that they interfere with headings which makes the page look messy. I think the transport section has improved now that the branch line page has been created and the three seperate methods have been emboldened. And just to clear things up - I tried to leave the images with their respective sections, and I didn't remove the invensys info. I think that the article is looking a lot better now (still missing that Geography section though). Jack 14:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I disagree, it has become standard practice on wikipedia to place images on the left. I don't think it makes the article look messy at all, on the contrary it makes it look more professional. For eg. Cardiff, article looks good with images on the left, swansea ditto, manchester again, etc etc etc JHJPDJKDKHI! 18:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that images look great on the left and would like to see that on this page it's just that they were all breaking up headers see example as most sections are too small. I also agree they make it look more professional and easier on the eyes too, I was only refering to this article being messy because of them. Hope we can work our way around it! Jack 00:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope you don't mind me being bold, but I've completely changed the order of sections and some of the position of images following Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements's guidelines. It gives really good help for writing about places. This article could do with a section on Landmarks and maybe the removal of sub headings in the culture section. If you've got a one liner sentence it shouldn't have its own sub heading. Just merge with something else. Also I've noticed that this article uses external links a lot. Generaly speaking, external links shouldn't be in the main article, only in the external links section. I can't see any places within the article, where there might be an exeption, so I'd suggest deleting all of them. bsrboy (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the external links, many should be converted to references, with the remainder perhaps moved to the External Links section. EdJogg (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice image

[edit]

I'm quite eager to place on the artile the following image I found on flickr.

File:Ilfracombe morning.jpg

ALthough it's probably best if I cut the bottom off and clean it up abit.JHJPDJKDKHI! 16:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What an amazing shot! The only problem is the license that this photo is under ([1]) doesn't allow modification of the image as far as I'm aware. It'll still look good like that tho. Jack 17:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's a shame wikipedia has no allowance for us to exercise our right under the CC licence waive any of the CC conditions if we get permission from the copyright holder. Even if I get permission I still can't modify it and place it on wikipedia, it's extremely annoying. Maybe if I got permission to release it under the GNUFDL, or perhaps if the copyright holder uploads the modified version to flickr or wikipediaJHJPDJKDKHI!

Hi there is photograph of Ilfracombe during a storm on Flickr. It was taken during a storm in April 2002 from a position on Lantern Hill very similar to that picture taken in 1890; I think the comparison would be useful. The photograph is mine and is free access, it has been used by the weather watchers and in several publications as a demonstration of "climate change", actually it was simply a big storm and a beautiful evening FrankPearson 21:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frank, good to hear from you! That would be excellent. I'm not sure how to attribute copyrighted works on wikipedia. I fear wikipedia has gone completely down the line of open content even if permission is sought and gained. I will get back to you on this. There may be a tag we can use to get around it, if so it would be an excellent addition. I also need to crop the image you refer to JHJPDJKDKHI! 08:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seagulls...

[edit]

In today's Times there is a report that Gloucester City Council is going to build on its success in limiting the growth of its seagull population. They have discovered that if a plastic egg is placed in the gull's nest, the birds will continue to incubate it for the whole season, and thus not breed again!

Dunno how you might persuade this into the Ilfracombe article, but thought it was at least pertinent (and a little amusing!).

EdJogg 09:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

[edit]

I thought it apppropriate to create an article on the architecture of ilfracombe, in hindsight this is probably more suited to this history section of this article but alot could be written on this subject were we able to obtain the right materials easily. Alas, what is available online is scant, however, a Jim Bates has gone to the trouble of drawing many notoble buildings and explained their history on his site below.


Also, does anyone know what the best way is to format the article in question?

Cheers JHJPDJKDKHI! 08:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OS Coordinates

[edit]

The current OS coordinates appear to be for Swansea, can someone fix this ASAP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.107.131 (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've changed it now and added the lat and long. Jack 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned coat of arms.

[edit]

The coat of arms appears to have been orphaned by one of the latest edits. Upon review of it I think it is in the public domain because of expiary on such works. I believe it's over 75 years old.

Also, some edits have erased some information about he economy and some useful formatting. I will sort that out at a later date. The architecture of ilfracombe page I created is quite funny. Especially as it appears in the category of archetecture by city. I will try and format it to look a little like the city architecture pagesJHJPDJKDKHI! 16:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. The recent infobox change left the article with an A3-sized area of white space (take your pick whether 'A3' refers to the paper format, the trunk road, or 'Flying Scotsman' (the steam loco)!!). My fix was rather quick-and-dirty, just to restore sanity! (Oh, and someone removed the seagull as unnecessary! Boo-hiss!) EdJogg 17:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should get the picture of the seagul back up. In my opinion it brought part of the article to life and several people who I showed the article too, commented on how they liked that picture in particular. JHJPDJKDKHI! 15:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Wave image

[edit]

I didn't notice at first but it seems Frank Pearson has allowed us to use his image of a big storm in ilfracombe

Very nice image but I'm unsure how best to incorporate it into the article. It would look very good next to that 1890s image, as frank suggested. However there is one issue about this that there perhaps needs to be something in the text about the storm. -- Supposed (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

[edit]

Some of this is relavent as things have changed. So will edit it later unless anyone else wants to? JHJPDJKDKHI! (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms

[edit]

Anyone know why the coat of arms won't show up in the infobox? Supposed (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  16:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

On the subject of the Manor House in Chambercombe, the line "It is also said to be haunted." is unverifiable and is superstition. I think this should be removed.

ChrizC (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary "It is also said to be haunted." is entirely verifiable (regardless of whether you think it is superstition), and I've added the page from Chambercombe Manor's website to say as much. (Note that other websites do also mention the haunting, but this one actually provides a reason for it and seems to be reasonably factual.)
Thankfully we do not have to verify that it actually is haunted, only that it is said to be haunted!
EdJogg (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

[edit]

Hi,

Can anyone here help distinguish the correct pronunciation as there appears to be some disagreement about it/ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilfracombe&curid=370363&diff=308682526&oldid=308055507

JHJPDJKDKHI! (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the new pronunciation is more accurate EdwardRussell (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

Ilfracombe Community Centre is a very short article, and could easily be merged here without loss of content- but as it stands, being subject of a television program is insufficient to establish notability. Rodhullandemu 23:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- This is one of several sub-articles created about the same time by one editor doing much work on the Ilfracombe article. Several have since been re-merged. Not sure there's much scope for expansion of this one. Can always be split-out again in future. (In this case, I think most of the content came from Ilfracombe in the first place!) -- EdJogg (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms: Inappropriately low quality?

[edit]

To me the coat of arms image looks almost disgusting it is so dank and murky, especially with the fish involved in the picture! Was this found in a rock pool along with a stack of pornography? I don't really think it's an appropriate header for this article. Anybody else agrees, please go ahead and remove! --Tomsega (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been in the article for several years now, and the good burghers of Ilfracombe don't seem that worried or they would have uploaded a newer version. It's not such bad quality that it should be removed, although that doesn't mean that you can't use a better version to replace it.
This one looks like it was photographed on a building or historical document, so may have some history attached, and hence 'better quality' would not be possible. Unfortunately the caption does not elaborate. I have dropped a note on the contributor's talk page, but he hasn't been active at WP for a few months now.
EdJogg (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may have come from tour-devon.com. An alternative is on this badge for sale. -- Trevj (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1860s image of Ilfracombe

[edit]

I have just added this image of Ilfracombe, thought to date from the 1860s: File:Stereo card Ilfracombe 001.jpg. I'm telling you about it as it may or may not support some of the information already in the article. If you look at the full-sized image, you can see a larger ship beached at low tide in the centre of the harbour. It's a square-rigger, possibly with a tumblehome and possibly a carrack - though that's just a guess. By 1860 the seagoing fishing boats were ketches of about 80ft, so maybe that ship is 100 ft loa, which is possible for a carrack, I think? To keep it upright while beached would have required a lot of lines in all directions to the harbour bollards, and constant adjustment of lines. All good fun. Whether the 1820 Spanish ship in the article would still be there in 1860 is another question, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were still old carracks around. The Fighting Temeraire wasn't broken up until 1838.

Also the article mentions a fort somewhere - maybe someone can spot evidence of it? Anyway, if you do spot anything interesting in the picture which might improve or expand the article, please could you kindly write it here, as we'd all be fascinated to know about it. Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demography

[edit]

I'm not at all convinced about the final paragraph of the Demography section. There is no citation, and from experience I'd say that Ilfracombe certainly doesn't feel like most workers are 'white collar' in particular. Can anyone find the citation for this? If not, I think it ought to be removed. 94.195.26.44 (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody has found a citation, I have ensured that this statement is omitted (it was my comment last year, by the way) EdwardRussell (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sports and Leisure

[edit]

I'd like to see this entire section converted to prose, rather than a somewhat disjointed kind of list. Is anyone able to make an attempt at this? 94.195.26.44 (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold but be careful not to write original research. JHJPDJKDKHI! (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Length of History Section

[edit]

Given that there is a separate article on the history of Ilfracombe, and a link is provided from this page, what do people think about the idea of condensing the history section on this page in order to avoid its dominance of the article? EdwardRussell (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have copied all the relevant history parts from the Ilfracombe page to the History page, which will need a bit more tidying up and expanding, so the parts of history on the main page can be reduced and reference the history page. Snottage (talk) 21:41, 02 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fires

[edit]

I have changed the heading `The history of Ilfracombe's fires' to simply `Ilfracombe's fires'. This is in accordance with the guidance of the Automated Peer Review (above) EdwardRussell (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge NHSavage (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The uncited article Architecture of Ilfracombe doesn't provide much information and could easily be incorporated into Ilfracombe.— Rod talk 13:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The amount of content in this article does not warrant its own article. If there are no further comments in the next couple of days, I will do the merge.--NHSavage (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As above. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ilfracombe. 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) 09:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ilfracombe. 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) 03:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why I removed content

[edit]

The sentence talking about the council offices being transformed into a training centre had a permadead source, and from what I could find, the council offices are still the council offices. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ilfracombe&oldid=1234718120"