Talk:Weymouth, Dorset

Tramway

The correct title for the 'Quay Branch' is 'The Weymouth Harbour Tramway' which it was known as by the GWR and then BR. It never carried any public trams, the name simply refers to its location on the public highway. Fortunately the engines were not forced to use cow-catchers and side plates (think of Toby the Tram Engine!).Grumpy 13:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Census Data

I tried both links and both had problems - I'll try again at a later date. Is there a problem with the links? SeanMack 18:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Promote GA

I enjoy this article as it is well written. Its prose flows smoothly from one section to section. The Wikipedia manual of style is also used properly. The article is also well referenced with sufficient inline citations. All major aspects of the town are given briefly enough, which means the topic is broad enough and no NPOV problem. This article is also quite stable as no controversies around. I also like images given and I have checked that all images are properly tagged with suitable Wikipedia licenses. With all of this, this article qualifies as Good Article. Congratulations to the editor for this beautiful work. — Indon (reply) — 15:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Written Article

I agree with Indon on this one, the Weymouth article is written very well, and has a broad range of topics, with the right amount of detail - not too much, but still enough to fully describe the town. I think with a bit of fine tuning of exact wording and tone, and this article could become a Featured Article. I too congratulate the editors for their work, and those who have spent time to take photographs of key topics et ectera - they work very well. 86.133.245.124 14:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Should this article be nominated for Featured Article status? I think it fulfills all, if not almost all, FA criteria, so it could be suitable for nomination. It certainly includes most relevant topics to do with the city/town. I do agree with Indon and User:86.133.245.124. Rossenglish 14:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox looks good. Thanks, Tutmosis. I restored Image:Weymouth Promenade.jpg that was in the old infobox. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice work Tutmosis, and thanks for reinstating the promenade image Hrothulf. Rossenglish 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

New additions

This page seems to be associated with several other pages, and is linked to around 100 subsequent articles, so I thought a 'See also' section would be suitable. Feel free to add more links/comment on it, or even delete links you feel they are not needed! Rossenglish 20:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added a weatherbox template to the article to summarise Weymouth's climate, with the data painstakingly taken from Met office maps, hope people like it, and if not, it may be removed after mentioning it here! Rossenglish 19:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Status

After a series of many improvements recently, this article has acheived Featured article status. However, that doesn't make the article perfect, so any improvements made in good faith to the article are welcome.

Rossenglish 15:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoken Version added

I have added a spoken version of this article today; see the link at the top. Hassocks5489 16:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Geology map

I made a new geology map, so the description is now out of date. I have no idea how to describe the colour though, so somebody else will have to! Joe D (t) 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

South West Coast Path

The South West Coast Path passes through Weymouth, and there has been a proposal made that its article should be rewritten. At present it is largely long lists of towns, villages, and places of interest. If you can help turn these lists into prose, could you join in at Talk:South West Coast Path. Thanks. Geof Sheppard 13:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sand Sculptures

The Sand Sculptures are the works of Fred Darrington and Mark Anderson, and not simple sand castles as per the sand sculpture artical http://www.sculpturesinsand.com/gallery.html

The sculptures are done with nothing more than sand and water, and then painted 172.200.238.252 19:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sand Sculpture wiki page needs to be updated 172.213.243.174 21:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejig

Hello team,

Just a note that I've brought this great article (and it is great - I had no idea it was an FA) inline with the WP:UKCITIES standard and added a few advanced features (like image into infobox) that have been employed since this article achieved FA. Hope that's OK, -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that since the re-jig I have played around with the pictures to even them up, and I moved some stuff from economy to sport. I noticed the demography and governance needed expanding, which is what I'm doing now. Rossenglish (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

What covers an 8 square km area-the 48 conservation designations or the 11 SSSI? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.28.168 (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just the SSSIs – I will clarify the sentence shortly. Thanks for pointing that out! Rossenglish (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you Pabletex from the Spanish Wikipedia? If so, you are doing some fantastic work! Rossenglish (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's me. And thank you so much for your comment :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.219.66 (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Question II

The article about the Isle of Portland (section Demography) says that there were 9.1 burglaries per 1000 people in 2005 and 2006, while this article says that in Weymouth there were 12.0 crimes per 1000 households. Isn't there a mistake in any of these articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.203.61 (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out! The correct sentence should have been X burglaries per 1000 households. I have changed both the Weymouth and the Isle of Portland articles. Rossenglish (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Question III

Could someone explain me what floorspace is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.203.61 (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Floorspace is the area inside a building. In the case of this article, the 37 500 square metres of 'floorspace' refers to the area in the town centre taken up by shops. Rossenglish (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Question IV

In the section about sport and recreation, the srticle says: Although the plans were to move by August 2007, the scheme was shelved before construction could begin, refering to a second move of de Wessex stadium. Is this scheme definitely cancelled or was it posponed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.208.195 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The August 2007 scheme has been cancelled, but a completely different scheme could possibly be agreed, but that is not for Wikipedia to say. Hence I would use the term 'cancelled' rather than 'postponed'. Rossenglish (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Question V

In the introduction it says that Weymouth is 8 km away from the Isle of Portland, but in the section about geography it says that they are 3 km away from each other. Which is right? Thank you for answering my questions :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.193.209 (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The 8 km distance in the introduction is the distance from the centre of Weymouth to the centre of the Isle of Portland. The 3 km distance in the geography section is how far away Portland is from the coast - i.e. there is 3 km of sea between Portland and the mainland. I will make this clearer in the article. Rossenglish (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Queston VI

There is something I haven't understood: there are no more services in tramway but there still are services in trains, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.193.209 (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There are trains that serve Weymouth train station twice an hour from London, but they don't use the tramway. There are still very very occasionally trains that go on the tramway, but they are only for special events. Rossenglish (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Question VII

In the article about Melcombe Regis it says that it was one of the first points of entry of the Black Death into England in the summer of 1348. (The disease was possibly carried there by infected soldiers and sailors returning from the Hundred Years' War), while in the section about history of this article it says that Melcombe Regis is thought to be the first port at which the Black Death came into England, aboard a spice ship in June 1348. So, how did the Black Death get into England—carried by soldiers or aboard a spice ship?

The truth is that nobody knows for sure what was on the ship, spices or soldiers. That is why both theories say 'is thought to be' or 'possibly' - as we cannot be certain. I'll change the Melcombe Regis article to clarify this. Thanks once again! Rossenglish (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Question VIII

In this article it says that the Isle of Portland lies 3 km to the south of Weymouth, but in the article about the island it says that it is 2 km to the south of the town. Which is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.82.61.49 (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh thank you so much for noticing that! The correct figure is 3 km, I have changed the Portland article. It is really helpful when someone reads these articles so thoroughly like you are, thanks a lot :) Rossenglish (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Question IX

There is one link to "Dorset Downs" titled "South Dorset Downs". Aren't they different landforms? Isn't there a mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.82.62.29 (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are right. I've changed the link to South Dorset Downs. =) Rossenglish (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Atheism & Irreligion

Ad. [1]. Please clarify whether it is atheism or irreligion, because two terms are different. Visor (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict). Someone twice edited the Relgion box (in the Demography section) to point "No religion" to Irreligion (example: this diff). Both edits got reverted with accusations of vandalism. These don't appear to be vandalism, but good faith. And in my opinion, that parson's edits look superior to what was there before as "no religion" is perhaps better described as "irreligion" rather tahn atheism. Comments?--85.158.139.99 (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, I'll be bold and will change it to Irreligion.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

...and User:Visor's done it anyway. I'll strike out the vandalism notices on the anon's page.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This IP was mine anyway :) Visor (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

shcneider trophy

wasnt there a memorial to the above and what was the back grount? Engineman (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is one, in Greenhill gardens. "The Schneider Trophy weathervane is a memorial to a former Weymouth College student, Lieutenant George Stainforth, who set a world record air speed in a Schneider Supermarine S6B seaplane in 1931. The weathervane has been in the gardens since May 1952 and was restored in 1999 by a local marine engineer." Information on Greenhill Gardens. I could add this in if you like. Ross^English 17:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny sentence

"The population of Weymouth is almost 52,372." So, er - exactly what is it then? 52,371.6? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.90.144 (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It used to say 'almost 52,000'. Lots of edits and vandalism today you see. Ross^English 19:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Would anyone (other than 4channers screaming hypocrisy) object to me deleting the article in order to remove the 4chan vandalism? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 06:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by 4chan vandalism? The vandalism since yesterday has been reverted, so what does it achieve? Ross^English 06:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

4chan uses old revisions to vandalize articles, so, with all due respect, having the revisions there is a liability; so long as they remain in the history, vandals can post a link to the bad revision and expect results, so to speak. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 06:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So what does the process involve - I am guessing copying the article, deleting the online page, then making a new one of the current revision? (sorry for the long absence- work) Ross^English 15:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's simple. An administrator deletes the article, then selectively restores revisions to remove vandalism or other undesirable edits. The way you suggest would fall foul of GFDL requirements for attribution; deletion and selective restoration preserves the attribution. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 16:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I see, thanks for explaining, I have always thought that the history always stays unless an article is deleted without moving it, I didn't know there were tools to get rid of selected edits. I see no objection, and I don't think anyone else would, as long as it has a precedent. I do not object to that. :) Ross^English 16:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Done; edits removed and history restored. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 17:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny Sentence II

The history of the borough stretches back to the 12th century; including involvement in the Black Death, the settlement of the Americas, the Georgian era, and World War II.

How can a town have involvement in an era, surely being merely existing during the Georgian era meant that it was involved with it, or am I missing some method that towns use to extricate themselves from entire decades of history? Quee1797 (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, it is a bit contrived. I suppose a more specific phrase would be: "involvement in the Black Death, the settlement of the Americas, the [something] of Georgian era, and World War II." From the history section, that something would probably be architecture, or design, or art, or culture, or society. I'll think what is the most appropriate and add it in, thanks for pointing that out. :) Ross^English 18:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that Weymouth, Dorset should be moved back to Weymouth. Weymouth (disambiguation) was recently moved to Weymouth without any prior consensus or discussion. Weymouth is a featured article, but since it has been moved to Weymouth, Dorset, the articles linked to it now point to the dab page. I don't see a problem with just leaving a dab link at the top of the article. BarretBonden (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't searched around to see if there was any discussion in an un-obvious place, as sometimes happens, but if there was indeed none then I completely agree. The argument is had over many towns whose name is used for multiple purposes around the world, and it seems that different solutions have been chosen on different occasions, so there isn't a clear precedent. But what is certain is that such a move shouldn't stand up without at least a discussion. – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it was better to have this article at 'Weymouth' and not 'Weymouth, Dorset', for the reasons above, and that no discussion took place before the recent move. It makes little difference to this article, but it does to every page with a link to 'Weymouth' rather than 'Weymouth, Dorset', which is more appropriate when the context (i.e. Dorset) is clear. Ross^English 20:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The article about Weymouth bits was a stub broken out of the curb bit article and I personally support merging that article back into curb bit. WikiProject Equine has also had some recent issues with a bunch of stubs and redirects created by the same editor without initial discussion or consensus. So while the editor who did this may complain, I don't think the rest of the members of WikiProject Equine are going to kick about it, it wasn't our idea...do as you see fit and if you need to merge and redirect the Weymouth bit article, just paste the text on Talk:Curb bit and we'll take it from there. Montanabw^(talk) 01:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved the page. Has someone put notices on the talk pages of all the other articles of places and people and things named Weymouth? That seems only fair. I moved the page because I think the length of the disambiguation page merits it. The problem of many links to a disambiguation page should be fixed by editing the linking pages, not by moving the anchor page. I started on fixing those links but stopped when I saw there were thousands of spurious links due to a leaky template. I went off to get help fixing that (here), then had to wait for the spurious links to disappear. There are now less than 1000 links (gaak) in main space but the kicker is not all of them are to Weymouth, Dorset. Why not join me in fixing those links? First, a question: do you prefer Weymouth, Dorset or Weymouth, England? --Una Smith (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Progress! Now there are under 500 links in main space. At present, Weymouth, England redirects to Weymouth, Dorset. If another Weymouth exists in England, Weymouth, England can be changed to a disambiguation page, but for now it is useful in articles on topics not specific to Dorset. --Una Smith (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ross notes that "Weymouth" rather than "Weymouth, Dorset" sometimes is appropriate in the context of the linking page. That is true, but it is equally true of Weymouth, Massachusetts et al. Using [[Weymouth, Dorset|Weymouth]] makes both the correct link and the desired link text. Hope this helps. --Una Smith (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Una Smith, why does there need to be notices on other pages with 'Weymouth' in the title? This discussion is about moving 'Weymouth, Dorset' back to its original page at 'Weymouth'. I would argue that the current Weymouth page should be renamed Weymouth (disambiguation) but that may be a different issue altogether. The main issue here is that Weymouth was moved without any discussion, and the move has consequently affected the many pages that link to it. I have had a quick look at the pages that link to the disambiguation page, and it would seem that the vast majority are intended to point to the town in Dorset. BarretBonden (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should Weymouth, Dorset, and not any other place named Weymouth, have the short title? --Una Smith (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What other pages link to a particular page have no bearing on whether it is right for that page to be the "default" page for the title. Moving this page again would be a waste of time. Any broken links need to be fixed. --WickerWiki (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Making Weymouth a disambiguation page will make it far easier in future to find and fix links needing disambiguation, because links to the page will be almost purely those needing disambiguation. That is a big improvement over the situation I found here, which is a consequence of "Weymouth, Dorset" occupying the title "Weymouth": perhaps 50 or 100 such links hidden among 900 or 950 correct links. If we move the Weymouth, Dorset article back to Weymouth, that situation will continue and disambiguating links to Weymouth will become a bigger chore than it already is. By moving the page as I did, I have set the stage to do that chore just once, once and for all. --Una Smith (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is another reason to make the change, as illustrated by this diff. Reading Charles Cunningham, I could not tell from its context if "Weymouth" actually referred to the Weymouth in Dorset and not Weymouth, Massachusetts. A reader would have to click on the link article to find out, and might still have doubts (as I did). --Una Smith (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Requested moves, BarretBonden requested that Weymouth, Dorset be moved back to Weymouth because most links were there (ie, because otherwise the links would need to be fixed). I began fixing links, until BarretBonden asked me to stop. I agreed to stop. I am willing to fix all the links myself. BarretBonden, does that satisfy you? If so, please withdraw your request. Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think its best to leave the move request until it is resolved and see if anyone else has any comments to add. Hopefully it will be completed within the next day or two, and I thought it might be sensible not to alter any more links until it is. If the page is moved back to Weymouth, maybe a seperate discussion could be started to try and reach a consensus on the appropriate page name. BarretBonden (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Poll

Proposed move: Weymouth, Dorset → Weymouth

Oppose - this move should be cancelled. It seems to be a Conflict of Interest case in that one use of a name is being promoted at the expense of all other uses. --WickerWiki (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - in the absence of an overwhelmingly primary topic, the ambiguous title should be a disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - No evidence that the city in Dorset is clearly the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability as a guide

Typically if one place is significantly more notable than others of the same name, it gets the un qualified version of the name, thus London goes to the UK and not to London, Ontario and Paris goes to France and not Paris, Texas. Weymouth may not be quite as clear cut as these examples but before one goes and changes the status quo, it makes sense to seek consensus. Una appears not to have done that, instead making a unilateral change. That has been highly controversial in the past. If there is resistance to a move, and a desire to move things back is evidenced, then going around and changing things that reference the thing that should be moved back is not helpful. Therefore I suggest no changes be made until the matter of moving back is resolved.

That said, I personally think Weymouth, Dorset is the more notable place (some quick stats from Google: Weymouth Massachussets gives about 350 K hits, Weymouth Dorset about 550K hits and Weymouth UK about 1.9M hits. Clearly the UK city is more notable than the American one. So this move needs to be undone. ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

London is a great example of why I am in favor of the disambiguation page having the ambiguous title. London (disambiguation) has a long list of places named London. Given my experience with other cases like this, however, I expect most links needing disambiguation go to the ambiguous title: London. Links needing disambiguation continue to be made, yet because London also has huge numbers of links referencing London, England, we have no effective way of finding those links. Too bad London was not made a disambiguation page years ago; now is much too late. --Una Smith (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Another example is AFP, which has about 60 incoming links. I disambiguated all the incoming links a year ago, so those 60 are new and fortunately the editor (likely me again) who fixes those new links won't have to wade again through hundreds of "good" links. --Una Smith (talk) 05:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that London should be a disambiguation page so that our readers, when they arrive here and search for the most common usage of the term, should have to go through another page to get where they are going? That's against our standards. This project is primarily for the benefit of the readers, not the editors. I think before you carry out moves, without consensus, but against the accepted practice, like you did here, you need to get the accepted practice changed. Only then should you be advocating this move. ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re "Are you seriously suggesting", please re-read the above. Re "accepted practice", it can go either way. On Wikipedia:Requested moves right now there are 4 proposals to move disambiguation pages to the base page. --Una Smith (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Harris (disambiguation) → Harris —(Discuss)

• Anne Hathaway (disambiguation) → Anne Hathaway —(Discuss)

• Ireland (disambiguation) → Ireland —(Discuss)

• Yonsei (disambiguation) → Yonsei —(Discuss)

Re "primarily for the benefit of the readers, not the editors", I agree. However, readers benefit more when no readers encounter links needing disambiguation. Many of the discussions about moving disambiguation pages around stems from the lack of a bot to automate disambiguating links. It sure would be nice to have one! In the case of Weymouth, I have already promised the other contributors here that I will disambiguate all links needing disambiguation, so no readers will be inconvenienced in any way. --Una Smith (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First, since I was directly responding to the above, and directly addressing the points you make, it's somewhat non collegial to suggest I need to re-read it, don't you think? Second, none of those examples really refute the case I made for London not being a dab page (and by extension, for Weymouth) as they deal with cases where there isn't a clearly more notable choice. The Ireland case is particularly inapplicable since it is political. At least one of the cases is one where you yourself have already taken a position, and thus is not indicative either. Finally, that you're willing to go forth and do a lot of busywork to change links is nice, but not really relevant I don't think. I think your time could be better spent in other ways. Such as seeking consensus for things BEFORE you do them. ++Lar: t/c 01:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. --Una Smith (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In the case of London, there being so many links to the intended London, England, it would be necessary to disambiguate huge number of incoming links that already exist before making London a disambiguation page. But if that were done, is there anything intrinsically wrong with making London the disambiguation page? Let's say London (as it now is, about London, England) has 1,000,000 incoming links. What fraction of them are wrong and need disambiguation? There are a lot of other places named London. Is the fraction just 1%? That would be 1,000 wrong links, each sending readers to the wrong article and requiring them to recover. The problem lies in finding that 1% of wrong links among the 1,000,000. Searching for them by hand among the 1,000,000 really would be busywork. And each editor who tried would have to start from scratch, facing 1,000,000 links. By comparison, on a disambiguation page named Weymouth, doing an initial cleanup of incoming links then disambiguating new incoming links would be (is) pretty light work. --Una Smith (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links may be helpful. That project now is working on disambiguating links to Captain. --Una Smith (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disambiguation

Now that Weymouth is a disambiguation page, I have begun disambiguating its incoming links. This is timely, because Weymouth, Dorset is an upcoming Olympic Games venue. Although most of the incoming links have something to do with Weymouth the town, many should be changed to link to one of the many other articles about specific topics connected with Weymouth. You can help. I have also proposed moving Category:Weymouth to Category:Weymouth, Dorset. --Una Smith (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation is done, except for a handful of links that I cannot disambiguate by context alone. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Weymouth and limit the view to articles (like this). A big thank you to everyone who helped to disambiguate the 1000-odd links to Weymouth. By the way, about 10% of the links I disambiguated went to articles other than Weymouth, Dorset. --Una Smith (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Good work. But perhaps next time you wish to move a page such as this, you could be courteous enough to begin a discussion first. BarretBonden (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In hindsight, this is one where I should have asked first. --Una Smith (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that the disambiguation is finished, Weymouth, Dorset has about 600 links. So, of the original 1000 or so links to Weymouth (which at the time was about Weymouth, Dorset), about 400 (40%) were wrong. --Una Smith (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Cfd

Resolved

There is an ongoing cfd to rename the category to Category:Weymouth, Dorset. Occuli (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The category was renamed. --Una Smith (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Economy

I visited Weymouth for the first time yesterday and was stunned by how visibly poor it is compared with prosperous neighbours such as Poole and Bournemouth. Many shops in the pedestrianised area are empty, and there were no retail outlets of an aspirational nature. Even the finer buildings architecturally show obvious neglect.

I came to this article in such of an explanation, but found none. To read it, one would think that Weymouth was flourishing. Compare it with the article on, for example, Sheffield, which directly addresses its decline in the 1970s and 1980s in the first few paragraphs.

Could someone who knows about the local politics and economy add something truthful in this direction?

David Colver (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mayor

Hi there,

The mayor of W & P is now Anne Kenwood (Labour) and deputy mayor is Paul KImber (Labour). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.219.30 (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Population in 2006

According to the text Weymouth had an estimated population of 52.950 inhabitants in 2006. However, the reference says that "latest population figure (2006 mid year estimate) for the town is 52,150". --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Immigration

Does anyone have any further information about immigration in Weymouth? --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Decimal Points in Demographics

While it is true that ONS gives certain local population figures calculated out to x.xx%, other portions of the same section in the article only go to x.x%, again, based on ONS calculations. WP:MOSNUM#Decimal_points says we should not mix the presentation of the decimal places. Since xx.x% of the national population is religion TUV, the same format (number of decimal places) should be used for Weymouth. This is not one of those rare cases where the numbers were taken with unequal precision -- the numbers for Weymouth are 10 years old, so presenting such overly precise calculations is meaningless. See False precision for more information. Thanks for your attention and edit! --S. Rich (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Novel set in Weymouth

The following link * A visit to Weymouth Sands [2] was added by me 30/7/2012 and then removed as spam. I think that this web site, which relates to John Cowper Powys's novel Weymouth Sands, set in Weymouth, is relevant -- not spam-- especially as it contains images of old maps and of Weymouth. Maybe I should have made that clearer. The web site is certainly not commercial. Rwood128 (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this off on the talk page, rather than just putting it back in the article. Even if the addition were not spam, it fails WP:ELNO #11, "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites". From the home page at the link: "welcome … to this site dedicated to the Powys family".--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I welcome this discussion, though after reading WP:ELNO #11 I'm not entirely convinced. This web site is of a high quality and linked to a reputable source [3] and contains images that would seemly enhance the article. It also has information on a writer and novel associated with the Dorset town of Weymouth. Surely external links to established literary societies are acceptable? I hope others will comment. Rwood128 (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 (talk • contribs)

Not inundated with wise responses; do you want to try WP:ELN for a second opinion? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's good to get any response. But "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites" -- doesn't fit this example. All the same I too have my doubts. Maybe the answer is a new section on literary Weymouth, especially as there are also connections between Thomas Hardy and both Weymouth and Portland. Rwood128 (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Weymouth Sea Life Tower

Weymouth Sea Life Tower, which is a new structure is not featured in the article; see File:Weymouth Sea Life Tower, Dorset, England-3Sept2012.jpg and BBC. As far as I can see, this structure is not featured anywhere in the article nor in the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

German Wikipedia

I used the version '01:06, 9 March 2013‎ OgreBot' to translate the section History into the German Wikipedia.--LacZ (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Turner painting?

Any thoughts on adding this Turner watercolour to the article? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Weymouth JMW Turner (c. 1811)

The general approach is to use images to illustrate the text, so unless/until Turner is mentioned there, a pic on its own might seem a bit disconnected. My guess is that Turner - even though he painted a few scenes in the area - might not be important enough to this article to warrant highlighting unduly (which adding a pic possibly would do), unless a source can be found stating otherwise? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Pretty picture though isn't it? And so much more evocative than a photo. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 11:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)