This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lowestoft article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Sparrow's Nest page were merged into Lowestoft. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Lowestoft Mayor page were merged into Lowestoft. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article has numerous quaint, unmistakebly 'Lowestoftian' but unsuitable parts, such as describing new offices as 'swanky', saying a plane 'dropped like a stone' and an unsubstantiated rant about travellers stealing money form the town at the airshow. I have corrected these, but didn't check through whole article so probably more. Feels as though all from same person.
I have lived in Lowestoft for 15 years. I am still an ousider The obsession with traffic problems and certainly the religion of the third river crossing have been the only "campaign" from the locals I have witnessed in those fifteen years. Somehow the fallacy that building their beloved third river crossing will solve the town's problems needs to be stressed - evidence found to include here. After all businesses flock to London, Manchester and many other places which have terrible transport problems; I think all the "traffic stuff" on this page should be removed - of no consequence. OK perhaps just a sentence or two. Including it makes the town (and its inhabitants) look obsessed by an issue of relatively little consequence. The replies to my pointing this out will probably prove me right... What about the lowest education standards in Suffolk? What about the lack of new industries with well paid jobs - so that anyone with qualifications must move? Not a word, not a dicky-bird... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.20.169 ( talk) 16:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I recently came back to this article and noticed that any mention of John Edward Hloover has been deleted, and in its place irrelevancies regarding the Yarmouth herring trade. As all Roman Hill pupils had to engage in studies of the beach village, we were all taught that Lowestoft is a consonental shift from 'Hloovers Toft' based on the founder of the beach village.
-- On a similar topic (which is why I put it here - I'm not the above user who failed to sign their comment), I just edited this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowestoft#Waveney_Sunrise_Scheme_And_Associated_Works and removed the false statement regarding no-one knowing who Thomas Crisp was (In relation to Tom Crisp Way's naming). 82.27.16.206 ( talk) 18:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The following quoted paragraph (Sunrise scheme section) in my opinion lacks neutrality "local government not finding out or asking the wishes of local people, and instead imposing badly thought out, expensive schemes which are if anything detrimental."
Have flagged it for POV Check.
You Decide :)
The fact that these obviously subjective observations are offered as fact disqualify it from serious consideration. Whilst the sunrise scheme has its detractors, it also has its admirers. (But I don't particularly like it).
The Sunrise (or as we like to call it The Sunset) Scheme I live in Lowestoft and none of my family have heard anything good said about the scheme except by the designers, builders and the local council. The money for this and the South Lowestoft Relief Road should have been used for a third crossing. All these two schemes have done is waste about 45 million GBP of taxpayers money. Foggy dew 19:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I live in Lowestoft too and while i personally like the sunrise scheme i am of the opinion that the money would have been better spent on a third road crossing.
I live in Lowestoft as well,and it is obvious to anyone who does so that the detractors are more numerous than the admirers as proved on various forums,and so are perfectly entitled to present their viewpoint.
Points taken, I live in Lowestoft too, was just trying to keep the article in an encyclopaedic format. Flag removed
I moved back to the UK from abroad about three years ago from one of the so-called richest countries in the world. I have a Suffolk background and now, to my suprise, live in the town.
Lowestoft may well suffer from a lack of taste in its regeneration, but actually it suffers more from a lack of self-esteem. The town and its buildings are of good quality. Walk along London Road North and look above the modern shopfronts and see the original buildings behind. Think of the High Street stripped of hairdressers, junk shops, charity shops, and with the properties renovated and you would have an Aldeburgh or Southwold. Lowestoft has a lot of potential, but suffers from a peculiar East Anglian form of self-detraction.
The developers were quoted in the local press as saying that there were no objections to the plans for this building at the relevant stage - Like the sunset scheme how many people where aware of just what was planned
Foggy dew 18:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The sunrise scheme comments come across as an opinion and not one that is fact. For example:
1 "In fact the paving changed from an attractive red brick to Coronation Street-style grey cobblestones which are out of character with the area, and a few trees were planted. " - the old red bricks had a number of places where they had been removed for works and replaced with tarmac. They were uneven and slopped at various angles in a number of places. They needed refurbishment or replacement. An opinion on whether grey is better than red is not appropriate.
It is a fact that a lot of people have written in the loacl press saying they do not like the sunset scheme Foggy dew 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
2 "There has been much controversy over the scheme with people branding it as a waste of money that could have been invested into schemes such as the third River Crossing." - Some of the works are in preperation for a possible third crossing with announcements of two possible routes to follow in 2007. An opinion that the money should be spent elsewhere isnt appropriate for works that are ongoing.
3 "and creating several fountains for children to play in, although these have been criticised as resembling a flushing toilet for dogs." - There was one such complaint of this type in the local paper letters section. Following weeks had more letters in support of the fountains with a view that the person "whinging" didnt have children and didnt want features for the benefit of children. During warm weather the facility is always busy with children playing in it. One person's criticsm shouldnt be included.
The position of the fountains has changed the way that the Rememberence day parade worked Foggy dew 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
4 "Lowestoft does have the problem of local government not finding out or asking the wishes of local people, and instead imposing badly thought out, expensive schemes which are if anything detrimental." - opinion of an individual. Although there are some areas which do make you think the comment is correct, proving it is harder
This statement is true for most of the UK Foggy dew 18:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
5 "The most serious mistake has been the failure to exploit the centrally situated Lake Lothing as an area for recreation and waterside homes, and instead the derelict industrial areas have simply been replaced by misplaced unattractive industrial and commercial buildings which create a bad impression of Lowestoft for people driving past. The council have decided to evict eight firms near ASDA so they can have some fancy new offices,even the MP has protested loudly at this latest arrogant uncaring attitude." - this is all opinion and appears to anti-local Govt. Much of that area is still under development and parts of that area include the route for one of the proposed 3rd river crossing. This "venting" shouldnt be in the article and certainly not on incomplete works.
It is the world's largest wind turbine. is unsubstantiated. Google [1] gives several alternatives to this claim which are all bigger.-- JBellis 12:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems many people have strong views on the subject of the wind turbine. Anonymous editors have added their opinions and their opinions on the neutrality of the local press. This is probably not the place to air those views so I editied the article to reflect facts rather than opinion. User:lanesra68
It is only poorly educated people who pronounce Lowestoft Lowstuff!
I was just doing a disambiguation repair on this page and I noticed that an anonymous editor had added some information to the Geography section that is written in the first person and contains several statements that show POV. I have removed the information from the article and placed it here:
Could an editor more familiar with the subject review the information, correct it and return it to the article if necessary? Thanks.
Road Wizard 16:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I HAVE REMOVED THIS OPINION DUE TO THE FACT THE PERSON YOU WERE COMMENTING ON DOES SUFFER WITH DYSLEXIA. Very unfair comment.
lots of spelling mistakes, altough I do agree that Rock School was a bit biased
I watched this and although you would expect the normal sequence of events to be:
1) Visit area beforehand and get to know it
2) Write a script story based on 1)
3) Go and shoot film to illustrate the script
What they actually did was:
1) Shoot film nearest, quickest, least effort
2) Concoct a story - any story - that fits these film clips.
A lot of the footage was shot just a few yards or a few feet away from the school - for example in the road outside or in an adjacent alleyway.
The programme wasnt so bad - at least it showed that Lowestoft looks quite nice, has big sandy beaches, and so on.
The article is currently a mess - it should for example be divided up into sections.
It would be interesting and rewarding if someone from Lowestoft could add some more information on the Lowestoft Witch Trials in the 17th century; I've come across bits and pieces on them on the web and there have been books written on them. They seem fascinating. Any takers? -- PD 19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This has already been done - see my website at www.lowestoftwitches.com Ivan Bunn Ivanawbunn 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I was just at your site, it is really good! The background for my interest is a simple one, I searched the internet for my daughter and sons' names one day and found they were online; Amy and John Denny (!). The last witch to be burned in Britain or Ireland was also burned just outside of my home town in County Tipperary, shockingly this took place a few hundred years later. -- ( PD 05:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
It is reasonable to include the facts about commonly held opinions in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.1.184.77 ( talk) 21:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Looking again at this article after some months it seems that someone had been through it and censored out all the negative and critical things. Would anyone like to try to justify this? 80.2.222.220 12:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I was surprised to read in the paper (The Journal 28 March 2008) that the proposed school to the rear of Walmer Road has been scrapped because the land has been used by the public as open space for over twenty years, and by law it can be given town or village green status which prevents any development. The article only said that people walked their dogs on it, and children played on it - exactly what happened at Kirkly Fen before the so-called bypass was built.
Does this mean that Kirkley Fen could have become a town green if someone had applied for this, and thus the building of the new road would have been prevented? I've felt really depressed about this as it could have saved me and thousands of other people the daily psychological torment of loud road noise, and saved the public the wasting of tens of millions of pounds of public money. Please could someone tell me the truth. 80.0.107.16 ( talk) 14:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
i would like to ask if anyone could add anything to the refernces in popular culture i started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The lake district ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've temporarily reverted the page to it's May 7th position after a bunch of edits that I don't really understand. The first section after the lead is the primary reason for this as it reads as a letter or advert. May be an over-reaction and it could have been fixable, but I need some time to take a look at it - at least this puts us in a situation where we have an article which is usable for a period of time. Can I strongly suggest that we deal with this article on the talk page before getting into what increasingly appears to be a series of circular edits? -- Blue Square Thing ( talk) 06:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's get this clear once and for all. Lil Chris IS notable. This is not a value judgement on him as a person, but having had his own television series, appearing in numerous other television shows, releasing two albums with Top 40 singles, appearingon 'Celebrity' TV shows and being a recognisable name, amongst other things, there is no denying he is notable. So:
Whatever your opinion of him or his reasons for success, they aren't of consequence to a listing of notables. If they are really relevant, they might find a home on a 'Controversy' section on his page, but I doubt it. In any case, they'd need cites. No opinions, NPOV please.
Feel free to enter discussion here. Ignoring this and going ahead with such deletions or adding grafitti to his text on this page will be classed as vandalism. I'm open to discussion if anyone else is.
a_boardley ( talk) 11:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
My i ask why someone has deleted Dan Hawkins from the notable people section? If his brother Justin is listed do should he. lake district —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.57.82 ( talk) 15:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
On the local radio station one of the band members mentioned that they used to live in Lowestoft and often performed gigs in the town, i did not know if this should be added to notable people? lake district
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yeah_You%27s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.182.115 ( talk) 11:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
here is the information/link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/4dff677a-3de4-44f0-b30c-c714b6da1d14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.182.115 ( talk) 19:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this a better source? lake district http://www.thebeach.co.uk/on-air/info.php?refnum=850 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.182.115 ( talk) 16:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain what a citation is and how i go about doing it. lake district —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.196.19 ( talk) 17:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
How come a sentence has not been produced saying that Lowestoft is the capital in renewable energy?
http://www.ness-point.co.uk/Lowestoft-Renewable-Energy/Lowestoft-Renewable-Energy-Capital-UK/
Lowestoft is not in Norfolk and therefore no content on the Lowestoft page should state that it is, Lowestoft is in Suffolk.
The bad assessments of the council and planning department by government auditors should be included - its not supposed to be just a publicity brochure for the place, but a balanced view. Ignoring bad things is going to keep things bad. Other things to include would be mention of the very bad traffic problems the town has, and the various eyesores. Desperately needs a by-pass I think. For a little town its got a hell of a lot of traffic. 78.149.201.215 ( talk) 14:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The article says: Lowestoft is probably the most easterly town in the United Kingdom. What a strange remark for an encyclopedia. I've never been in Lowestoft, but after checking a map I removed the word probably. It is the most easterly town in the UK. Jaho ( talk) 22:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm proposing that we merge any notable content which can be found at the Sparrow's Nest page into the Lowestoft page. I'm sure the limited content on the page can easily be integrated into the Lowestoft page and help to make the article on Lowestoft a bit better at the same time. Any thoughts or opinions? Blue Square Thing ( talk) 17:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I have added a incedent from 2010 about three people that were struck by lightening this has lots of referances so should not be removed from artical!!!
I am looking on improveing lowestoftb artical by putting two topics together. Places of interest put togerther with shopping and services. This will save space on artical and two subjects can be covered at same time. When two subjects are put together it can be renamed; "locally famed locations" i should not see to much of a problem in doing this.
The lowestoft carnival is the second biggest event in lowestoft and should be inclueded in this artical.
The problem with getting Lowestoft artical to GA status is Lowestoft is a TOWN not a MAJOUR CITY!!! As regards to the CARNIVAL according to what your saying there should be a little mention of it under section; CONNECTIONS TWO ARTS!!!. As for transport i think it should be mentioned that OULTON BROAD HAS TWO LEVEL CROSSINGS WHICH ALSO CAUSE TRAFFIC PROBLAMS OF QUES AND GRIDLOCK!!!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkcover21 ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Lowestoft Artical lacks allot of referances so some of it will need to be written again to conclude with cititations. Some of this artical is all over the place. Some things have been repeated three times in different sections. Some of artical sections can be overlapped and merged together this makes artical smaller thus allowing more room for new information to be added to artical. ( Darkcover21 ( talk) 18:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC))
I should hope some of this ort to be done to make articals notability and statis greater than it is now!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ( Darkcover21 ( talk) 18:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC))
At top of Lowestoft artical it sais; "IS A TOWN IN SUFFOLK, ENGLAND" however; i think this should be added that Lowestoft is a Seaside Resort Town thus saying; "IS A SEASIDE RESORT TOWN IN SUFFOLK, ENGLAND" and a new catergory should be added; "CATERGORY; SEASIDE RESORTS IN ENGLAND". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkcover21 ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Why does this artical need a clean up? ive only just put the stuff on here and with great detail added and your already moaning about it! What better quality could you ask for? Also you can not moan about style as i have added italics to key words in paragragh! What more could be done than that?( Darkcover21 ( talk) 18:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC))
How it is a embarisment to Wikipedia? WP:STYLE is just a pain when editing articals! Allot of the stuff is notable localy to Lowestoft and its people! But maybe not as notable on national and international scales and people! I admit some of sections could be improved more! However; this should not involve deleting it all or re-verting the edits! Instead working on improveing what has been added! Some of your edits have been good! Like when you improved writeing and added a chart on Geography section!( Darkcover21 ( talk) 18:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC))
Ok so createing a economey section to include major employment sectors, traditional or former sectors and regeneration/gentrification. My exsample being Waveney Sunrise Scheame and 1st East Regeneration both no longer exsist but projects by them have been completed. fish docks can be mention allong with harbour but remember there are more things in it than just fish docks. For me Retail and Tourism are two of most important things. Place of interest is to show important and well known locations in town that people would go to see it is not supposed to just be tourism as it is for local people two i.e the community so it is good to change name of section places of interest to cultutre and community. Hopefully keeping all images to fit into sections. Governmance is not realey important and is small section it could be got rid of. Sport and leasure is not as seperate as you think as it can come under tourism, culture and community. ( Darkcover21 ( talk) 22:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC))
ok so Governance, Sport and leisure sections stay seperate as for createing a economey section to include major employment sectors, traditional or former sectors and regeneration/gentrification. My exsample being Waveney Sunrise Scheame and 1st East Regeneration both no longer exsist but projects by them have been completed.
fish docks can be mention allong with harbour but remember there are more things in it than just fish docks. For me Retail and Tourism are two of most important things.
Place of interest is to show important and well known locations in town that people would go to see it is not supposed to just be tourism as it is for local people two i.e the community so it is good to change name of section places of interest to cultutre and community. Hopefully keeping all images to fit into sections.( Darkcover21 ( talk) 22:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC))
Not proposed by me, but to start the discussion, I agree entirely. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 22:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Not proposed by me either (you're really supposed to start a discussion when you propose the merger btw!). I tend to disagree - too much content here anyway and the Port is reasonably notable in itself - I think it would survive an AfD easily for example. My opinion is that it would lead to the main Lowestoft article, which is already rather too long imo, becoming increasingly bloated. A more suitable merge, imo, would be to merge the Port of Lowestoft with Lake Lothing as there's already some duplication there, although that wouldn't necessarily reflect the outer harbour.
Pros and cons of this. I'd suggest seeking a wider range of opinions about what to do with it, although I would tend to think that merging with Lowestoft would be the least helpful option unless a major prune is going to be undertaken - see, for examples, Kings Lynn or Fleetwood, both of which are also ABP ports. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 22:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok so no need to merge it with Lowestoft artical however; could merge it with Lake Lothing. I wanted to say allow it is called ABP Port of Lowestoft this is just a name and it is infact a harbour. So whilst it is a harbour can cater for most sea vessels. But it cannot handel massive oil tankers and container ships or other massive vessels that you would expect to find in a port. Harbours are generally smaller than Ports. I think this should be added to artical along with more information on idustrys and services at Lowestoft Harbour.( Darkcover21 ( talk) 18:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC))
New section added culture and community this was added to improve other artical sections as part of a clean up and was disscused with user:Blue Square Thing this section should not be removed. ( Darkcover21 ( talk) 20:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC))
Where as there may not be a consensus this is why i mentioned notibilaty of Lowestoft artical. Along with lack of sources. As already said it does not mean what is wrote in artical is not true allow there not many referances. ( Darkcover21 ( talk) 23:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC))
The topic of this article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding, sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. This artical is not of majour importance or notability and lacks some sources. It would be good if some more sources could be added to back the claims. Allow i will say that the claims are true evenknow they are not sourced allot. ( Darkcover21 ( talk) 21:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC))
I have ofen been told bye User; Charles not to list things in wiki. However; notable people section is in list format. Allow; for this particuler section it is difficult to put it in any other format other than lists. Otherwise; in paragraphs it looks all jumbled up information. Where as a list seperates people and there definition clearly.( Darkcover21 ( talk) 23:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC))
Looking through the notable people section, I'm thinking that The Darkness should be listed as the actual band members? as the section is actually notable 'people'. Does anyone agree? Also not all members of the band are from Lowestoft. I think the members were listed as individuals before but were merged together a while ago?
I also think Reece Ritchie should be added to the notable people section, as his popularity is rising very quickly, but I think I have seen a discussion about him somewhere before on here? I didn't want to get it added if someone disagrees with his notability?
Ryublue ( talk) 10:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Generally the minimum requirement for a listing in a notable people from X section is that they have their own article, or significant coverage on a larger article (e.g. if they're part of a band). Equally generally the larger the settlement the greater the notability and greater the connection with the place they need to have, ideally also it should be the principle place they are associated with (or one of a couple of places they have about equal affiliation to). Reece Ritchie does have an article, and that article states he was educated in Lowestoft, so he does have the minimum, but the notable people section is quite long and could do with going through (see below) so I'd hold off adding anyone for the moment. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The current list of notable people is very long and seems to include people with some quite tennuous links to the town. I've never been to Lowestoft, and have not heard of most of these people, so I have no idea about them other than the list annotations and their articles. Here are my comments on the current crop - these are all my opinion and I'm probably wrong about at least some of them!
Remember, I could be wrong! Thryduulf ( talk) 12:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately a number of the images in use on this page just now are copyvios - the red arrows, Kirkley shopping centres, Historic High Street, Britten Centre and Claremont Pier certainly are - I've indicated where on my user page and have tagged them as speedies over at the Commons - so the chances are they'd disappear. These are all the responsibility of Darkcover21 oddly enough. I think the RN patrol one probably definitely is a copyvio as well - and given that the others are I'd be concerned about the South Pier one as well.
Sorry about that - I'd delete them myself usually, although it's not a bad thing to have pointed it out here. There are loads of good ones on geograph we can replace these with eventually fwiw. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 20:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Given the issues that this article has had recently (and not so recently tbf) I've been working on a rewrite in my sandbox - you can take a look here: User:Blue Square Thing/draft Lowestoft article. Whilst I'm very aware of WP:OWN issues, it's been suggested tome by a couple of people who have seen it that it might be useful to make a more or less wholesale replacement of the current article with it and then use it as a base for moving forward. I'd like to gather more opinion on that! I don't make any assumption that the sandbox version is "finished". It's not, and it desperately needs other people to write some content as my written style is a bit rubbish sometimes. But it might make a better base than the current article. The specific things I'm looking at include:
There's still lots to do - some more on the offshore industry perhaps, and along with that more reference to links with Yarmouth probably. The Lead needs lots of work - I'm rubbish with leads - demography needs working on (I have some numbers but it'll take some time to develop them) and I'm not that interested in government stuff or religion. Images will be needed eventually as well. I'd really appreciate opinions on whether or not wholesale replacement is a good idea. Given the history of this article I can't stress enough that I'm not trying to own it and that a range of opinions is crucial. In related stuff, I've prodded articles on Lowestoft Dockland Railway and Lowestoft local elections and may well do so to Lowestoft Mayor - or merge it anyway. I also feel it might be useful to archive this page - perhaps sticking everything pre-2011 in an archive? Blue Square Thing ( talk) 10:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
There obviously needs to be new starting point for this artical but rewriting it entirely is not a wise thing to do. I would work at artical section by section until all of it has been looked at and main features included with a bit of detail not just brief statements of five words. Otherwise anybody who doesnot know about Lowestoft and looks at this artical will not understand it. If any new information comes along that can be added later as doing this is only starter. But remember not all sections need doing some are ok. ( 2.101.11.234 ( talk) 22:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC))
OK, done it before we end up with this getting protected again :-) I've no doubt that we'll have lots of information about Kirkley shopping centre or the attractions of the South Pier added before tomorrow, but never mind - let's see if we can get this improved again now and then take it to peer review for more ideas. Notable people probably still too long fwiw. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 07:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is it when i try and contribute to this artical or ones related to it. People try and stop me from editing. Especially when the other people do not give a toss or dam and no care what so ever for Lowestoft or other articals about things in it. ( 92.28.247.119 ( talk) 14:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC))
Most other people contribute to Lowestoft and related articals. So people should not keep reporting things as spam or vandalism. As it is not spam or vandalism all it is contributing to articals. I am more than happy to talk about changes but it always seems others do not take any notice of talks about suggest changes. ( 92.28.247.119 ( talk) 14:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC))
Other nasty people on here are just trying to spite me. You all should not try and stop me from editing or contributing to Lowestoft and related articals. As i have as much right as you to do so.( 92.28.247.119 ( talk) 14:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC))
I made a request for partial protection on this page earlier today (at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Lowestoft). I count 6 IP addresses, all probably sockpuppets of Darkcover (and reported as such), editing today, including an uncompleted AfD (again) and a Speedy note (again). Ho hum. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 22:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
A surfer from London has died after getting into difficulty off coast at Lowestoft, Suffolk. I was thinking whether there could be a little mention of this on Lowestoft artical. As surfing is popular sport off Lowestoft coast and this iccident of surfer dieng was notable and rare. There are allot of references for this incident.
92.29.112.24 ( talk) 12:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Note guidance at WP:UKCITIES which says:
The Britten Centre, London Road North, Kirkley shops, the Triangle Market place or even the Historic High Street are not notable in a regional or national context. Nor, for that matter, is your best mates uncle's paper shop or the oh so helpful carpet store down the road that did your nanas front room on the cheap. The very brief mentions we already have here are probably way too much anyway. The article doesn't need non-notable trivia like that getting in the way. It's been added time and again - let's actually work on the areas the article needs work to move it beyond B status. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 15:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know the best place to find population data? I noticed the population used to be 72,339 but was changed recently to 64,358. I've looked in the 2001 census and the population was 57,746 ten years ago. Does anyone have the true value? Or should we wait until the 2011 data is available? Ryublue ( talk) 09:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The Census in 2011 said the population was 70,945 and the Waveney District council said the population of the town (including Oulton and Great Yarmouth) is 71,010. I live in Lowestoft and Oulton and Carlton Colville are part of Lowestoft so the figure of 58,000 is incorrect. Link to Census website. http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/query/asv2htm.aspx
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.162.77 ( talk) 20:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Ive added Pakefield Lighthouse as a Landmark it has a referance.
Pakefield Lighthouse, located at Pontin's Holiday Park on cliff tops in Pakefield at Lowestoft, it was built and opened in 1831 but light was first lit in 1832. [1] It stands 34 feet above sea level and emits a red light which has a range of 9 miles. But it was extinguished in 1864. In 2000 it was converted for use as a coastwatch station as apart of sea safety group. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.251.234 ( talk) 00:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
In Georgaphy ive added November 2007 Tidal Surge with Referances.
In November 2007 there was a North Sea tidal surge which was combination of high tides and gale force winds it was considered worst flooding in 50 years. [2] [3] [4] [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.18.89 ( talk) 12:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Ive added 2002 flood to geography section with referance.
Torrential Rain caused a flood in town in October 2002. [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.245.7 ( talk) 12:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Ive added St Peters Tower Block to Landmarks with a referance.
St Peters Tower Block, located at Chapel Street and Factory Street it is made up of flats and Lowestoft's skyline is dominated by it. In 2003 it was modernised and £2m was spent on repairs. [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.24.31 ( talk) 21:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Ive added Plasmor LTD Grain Silo to Landmarks with a referance.
Plasmor LTD Grain Silo, located at Inner Harbour on Commercial Road it is used for shipping grain to and from other countries. It also dominates Lowestoft's skyline and was refurbished by Folcrete Restoration Services LTD. [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.24.31 ( talk) 22:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone agree, and if so, does anyone have, a better image for the top right of the page? To me, the image of the old beach shelters (which are no longer there) really don't say 'Lowestoft'. Shouldn't this photo be an image of the town, or a main landmark? Ryublue ( talk) 11:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
First; I have lived in Lowestoft for twenty years. I read this "talk" and the article and see the typical Wikipedia discussions: strange edits praising a town to high-heaven (or doing it down), a total misunderstanding of what academic writing should be (anything negative even if supported is seen as personal own view), obsession with "pet hates" and local political legends (most of which are not specific to the town or so specific to a certain mind-set or pressure group). Also there is a belief here that the word "article" is spelt "artical" and that the possessive "its" is written "it's" If someone is afflicted by dyslexia, that requires our understanding, but when those who simply are sloppy in their writing are "demanding" clean-ups and so on, we know that Wikipedia is going sadly downmarket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.124.17 ( talk) 10:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I like to make a suggestion for improving the article in regards to the town's history. Could we include information on the town's development and changes during the latter half of the 20th century, after WWII? There's quite some notable events that occurred here, that could be detailed - the closure of the town's swing bridge; the effect of the flood of 1953; the loss of prominent landmarks in the town, such as Tuttle's Department Store (but not building), and St. John's Church; the decline of the fishing industry; and so forth. I think it would be nice if we could do this. And maybe possibly, more research could be done about the developments of the town in the 19th century; I know we mention Sir Peto and his railway, but perhaps mention of the Port of Lowestoft's construction should be included, the impact of tourism, and such like might be something else to consider? GUtt01 ( talk) 22:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This is now March 2019, and I have edited the Lowestoft entry to reflect the most recent (2015) and final WDC elections, along with the forthcoming 2019 changes to the District Council following amalgamation with Suffolk Coastal.
In doing so, I notice that there are sections which lack the most recent information e.g. 2011 Census data, and a number of other things.
If others are agreeable, I will make a start on what I think may be needed.
Roaringboy 11:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaringboy ( talk • contribs)
A seven-word mention when it's shown later in the year will more than suffice. Bmcln1 ( talk) 13:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect London Road North. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 26#London Road North until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lowestoft article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Sparrow's Nest page were merged into Lowestoft. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Lowestoft Mayor page were merged into Lowestoft. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article has numerous quaint, unmistakebly 'Lowestoftian' but unsuitable parts, such as describing new offices as 'swanky', saying a plane 'dropped like a stone' and an unsubstantiated rant about travellers stealing money form the town at the airshow. I have corrected these, but didn't check through whole article so probably more. Feels as though all from same person.
I have lived in Lowestoft for 15 years. I am still an ousider The obsession with traffic problems and certainly the religion of the third river crossing have been the only "campaign" from the locals I have witnessed in those fifteen years. Somehow the fallacy that building their beloved third river crossing will solve the town's problems needs to be stressed - evidence found to include here. After all businesses flock to London, Manchester and many other places which have terrible transport problems; I think all the "traffic stuff" on this page should be removed - of no consequence. OK perhaps just a sentence or two. Including it makes the town (and its inhabitants) look obsessed by an issue of relatively little consequence. The replies to my pointing this out will probably prove me right... What about the lowest education standards in Suffolk? What about the lack of new industries with well paid jobs - so that anyone with qualifications must move? Not a word, not a dicky-bird... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.20.169 ( talk) 16:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I recently came back to this article and noticed that any mention of John Edward Hloover has been deleted, and in its place irrelevancies regarding the Yarmouth herring trade. As all Roman Hill pupils had to engage in studies of the beach village, we were all taught that Lowestoft is a consonental shift from 'Hloovers Toft' based on the founder of the beach village.
-- On a similar topic (which is why I put it here - I'm not the above user who failed to sign their comment), I just edited this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowestoft#Waveney_Sunrise_Scheme_And_Associated_Works and removed the false statement regarding no-one knowing who Thomas Crisp was (In relation to Tom Crisp Way's naming). 82.27.16.206 ( talk) 18:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The following quoted paragraph (Sunrise scheme section) in my opinion lacks neutrality "local government not finding out or asking the wishes of local people, and instead imposing badly thought out, expensive schemes which are if anything detrimental."
Have flagged it for POV Check.
You Decide :)
The fact that these obviously subjective observations are offered as fact disqualify it from serious consideration. Whilst the sunrise scheme has its detractors, it also has its admirers. (But I don't particularly like it).
The Sunrise (or as we like to call it The Sunset) Scheme I live in Lowestoft and none of my family have heard anything good said about the scheme except by the designers, builders and the local council. The money for this and the South Lowestoft Relief Road should have been used for a third crossing. All these two schemes have done is waste about 45 million GBP of taxpayers money. Foggy dew 19:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I live in Lowestoft too and while i personally like the sunrise scheme i am of the opinion that the money would have been better spent on a third road crossing.
I live in Lowestoft as well,and it is obvious to anyone who does so that the detractors are more numerous than the admirers as proved on various forums,and so are perfectly entitled to present their viewpoint.
Points taken, I live in Lowestoft too, was just trying to keep the article in an encyclopaedic format. Flag removed
I moved back to the UK from abroad about three years ago from one of the so-called richest countries in the world. I have a Suffolk background and now, to my suprise, live in the town.
Lowestoft may well suffer from a lack of taste in its regeneration, but actually it suffers more from a lack of self-esteem. The town and its buildings are of good quality. Walk along London Road North and look above the modern shopfronts and see the original buildings behind. Think of the High Street stripped of hairdressers, junk shops, charity shops, and with the properties renovated and you would have an Aldeburgh or Southwold. Lowestoft has a lot of potential, but suffers from a peculiar East Anglian form of self-detraction.
The developers were quoted in the local press as saying that there were no objections to the plans for this building at the relevant stage - Like the sunset scheme how many people where aware of just what was planned
Foggy dew 18:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The sunrise scheme comments come across as an opinion and not one that is fact. For example:
1 "In fact the paving changed from an attractive red brick to Coronation Street-style grey cobblestones which are out of character with the area, and a few trees were planted. " - the old red bricks had a number of places where they had been removed for works and replaced with tarmac. They were uneven and slopped at various angles in a number of places. They needed refurbishment or replacement. An opinion on whether grey is better than red is not appropriate.
It is a fact that a lot of people have written in the loacl press saying they do not like the sunset scheme Foggy dew 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
2 "There has been much controversy over the scheme with people branding it as a waste of money that could have been invested into schemes such as the third River Crossing." - Some of the works are in preperation for a possible third crossing with announcements of two possible routes to follow in 2007. An opinion that the money should be spent elsewhere isnt appropriate for works that are ongoing.
3 "and creating several fountains for children to play in, although these have been criticised as resembling a flushing toilet for dogs." - There was one such complaint of this type in the local paper letters section. Following weeks had more letters in support of the fountains with a view that the person "whinging" didnt have children and didnt want features for the benefit of children. During warm weather the facility is always busy with children playing in it. One person's criticsm shouldnt be included.
The position of the fountains has changed the way that the Rememberence day parade worked Foggy dew 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
4 "Lowestoft does have the problem of local government not finding out or asking the wishes of local people, and instead imposing badly thought out, expensive schemes which are if anything detrimental." - opinion of an individual. Although there are some areas which do make you think the comment is correct, proving it is harder
This statement is true for most of the UK Foggy dew 18:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
5 "The most serious mistake has been the failure to exploit the centrally situated Lake Lothing as an area for recreation and waterside homes, and instead the derelict industrial areas have simply been replaced by misplaced unattractive industrial and commercial buildings which create a bad impression of Lowestoft for people driving past. The council have decided to evict eight firms near ASDA so they can have some fancy new offices,even the MP has protested loudly at this latest arrogant uncaring attitude." - this is all opinion and appears to anti-local Govt. Much of that area is still under development and parts of that area include the route for one of the proposed 3rd river crossing. This "venting" shouldnt be in the article and certainly not on incomplete works.
It is the world's largest wind turbine. is unsubstantiated. Google [1] gives several alternatives to this claim which are all bigger.-- JBellis 12:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems many people have strong views on the subject of the wind turbine. Anonymous editors have added their opinions and their opinions on the neutrality of the local press. This is probably not the place to air those views so I editied the article to reflect facts rather than opinion. User:lanesra68
It is only poorly educated people who pronounce Lowestoft Lowstuff!
I was just doing a disambiguation repair on this page and I noticed that an anonymous editor had added some information to the Geography section that is written in the first person and contains several statements that show POV. I have removed the information from the article and placed it here:
Could an editor more familiar with the subject review the information, correct it and return it to the article if necessary? Thanks.
Road Wizard 16:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I HAVE REMOVED THIS OPINION DUE TO THE FACT THE PERSON YOU WERE COMMENTING ON DOES SUFFER WITH DYSLEXIA. Very unfair comment.
lots of spelling mistakes, altough I do agree that Rock School was a bit biased
I watched this and although you would expect the normal sequence of events to be:
1) Visit area beforehand and get to know it
2) Write a script story based on 1)
3) Go and shoot film to illustrate the script
What they actually did was:
1) Shoot film nearest, quickest, least effort
2) Concoct a story - any story - that fits these film clips.
A lot of the footage was shot just a few yards or a few feet away from the school - for example in the road outside or in an adjacent alleyway.
The programme wasnt so bad - at least it showed that Lowestoft looks quite nice, has big sandy beaches, and so on.
The article is currently a mess - it should for example be divided up into sections.
It would be interesting and rewarding if someone from Lowestoft could add some more information on the Lowestoft Witch Trials in the 17th century; I've come across bits and pieces on them on the web and there have been books written on them. They seem fascinating. Any takers? -- PD 19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This has already been done - see my website at www.lowestoftwitches.com Ivan Bunn Ivanawbunn 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I was just at your site, it is really good! The background for my interest is a simple one, I searched the internet for my daughter and sons' names one day and found they were online; Amy and John Denny (!). The last witch to be burned in Britain or Ireland was also burned just outside of my home town in County Tipperary, shockingly this took place a few hundred years later. -- ( PD 05:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
It is reasonable to include the facts about commonly held opinions in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.1.184.77 ( talk) 21:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Looking again at this article after some months it seems that someone had been through it and censored out all the negative and critical things. Would anyone like to try to justify this? 80.2.222.220 12:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I was surprised to read in the paper (The Journal 28 March 2008) that the proposed school to the rear of Walmer Road has been scrapped because the land has been used by the public as open space for over twenty years, and by law it can be given town or village green status which prevents any development. The article only said that people walked their dogs on it, and children played on it - exactly what happened at Kirkly Fen before the so-called bypass was built.
Does this mean that Kirkley Fen could have become a town green if someone had applied for this, and thus the building of the new road would have been prevented? I've felt really depressed about this as it could have saved me and thousands of other people the daily psychological torment of loud road noise, and saved the public the wasting of tens of millions of pounds of public money. Please could someone tell me the truth. 80.0.107.16 ( talk) 14:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
i would like to ask if anyone could add anything to the refernces in popular culture i started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The lake district ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've temporarily reverted the page to it's May 7th position after a bunch of edits that I don't really understand. The first section after the lead is the primary reason for this as it reads as a letter or advert. May be an over-reaction and it could have been fixable, but I need some time to take a look at it - at least this puts us in a situation where we have an article which is usable for a period of time. Can I strongly suggest that we deal with this article on the talk page before getting into what increasingly appears to be a series of circular edits? -- Blue Square Thing ( talk) 06:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's get this clear once and for all. Lil Chris IS notable. This is not a value judgement on him as a person, but having had his own television series, appearing in numerous other television shows, releasing two albums with Top 40 singles, appearingon 'Celebrity' TV shows and being a recognisable name, amongst other things, there is no denying he is notable. So:
Whatever your opinion of him or his reasons for success, they aren't of consequence to a listing of notables. If they are really relevant, they might find a home on a 'Controversy' section on his page, but I doubt it. In any case, they'd need cites. No opinions, NPOV please.
Feel free to enter discussion here. Ignoring this and going ahead with such deletions or adding grafitti to his text on this page will be classed as vandalism. I'm open to discussion if anyone else is.
a_boardley ( talk) 11:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
My i ask why someone has deleted Dan Hawkins from the notable people section? If his brother Justin is listed do should he. lake district —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.57.82 ( talk) 15:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
On the local radio station one of the band members mentioned that they used to live in Lowestoft and often performed gigs in the town, i did not know if this should be added to notable people? lake district
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yeah_You%27s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.182.115 ( talk) 11:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
here is the information/link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/4dff677a-3de4-44f0-b30c-c714b6da1d14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.182.115 ( talk) 19:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this a better source? lake district http://www.thebeach.co.uk/on-air/info.php?refnum=850 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.182.115 ( talk) 16:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain what a citation is and how i go about doing it. lake district —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.196.19 ( talk) 17:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
How come a sentence has not been produced saying that Lowestoft is the capital in renewable energy?
http://www.ness-point.co.uk/Lowestoft-Renewable-Energy/Lowestoft-Renewable-Energy-Capital-UK/
Lowestoft is not in Norfolk and therefore no content on the Lowestoft page should state that it is, Lowestoft is in Suffolk.
The bad assessments of the council and planning department by government auditors should be included - its not supposed to be just a publicity brochure for the place, but a balanced view. Ignoring bad things is going to keep things bad. Other things to include would be mention of the very bad traffic problems the town has, and the various eyesores. Desperately needs a by-pass I think. For a little town its got a hell of a lot of traffic. 78.149.201.215 ( talk) 14:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The article says: Lowestoft is probably the most easterly town in the United Kingdom. What a strange remark for an encyclopedia. I've never been in Lowestoft, but after checking a map I removed the word probably. It is the most easterly town in the UK. Jaho ( talk) 22:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm proposing that we merge any notable content which can be found at the Sparrow's Nest page into the Lowestoft page. I'm sure the limited content on the page can easily be integrated into the Lowestoft page and help to make the article on Lowestoft a bit better at the same time. Any thoughts or opinions? Blue Square Thing ( talk) 17:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I have added a incedent from 2010 about three people that were struck by lightening this has lots of referances so should not be removed from artical!!!
I am looking on improveing lowestoftb artical by putting two topics together. Places of interest put togerther with shopping and services. This will save space on artical and two subjects can be covered at same time. When two subjects are put together it can be renamed; "locally famed locations" i should not see to much of a problem in doing this.
The lowestoft carnival is the second biggest event in lowestoft and should be inclueded in this artical.
The problem with getting Lowestoft artical to GA status is Lowestoft is a TOWN not a MAJOUR CITY!!! As regards to the CARNIVAL according to what your saying there should be a little mention of it under section; CONNECTIONS TWO ARTS!!!. As for transport i think it should be mentioned that OULTON BROAD HAS TWO LEVEL CROSSINGS WHICH ALSO CAUSE TRAFFIC PROBLAMS OF QUES AND GRIDLOCK!!!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkcover21 ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Lowestoft Artical lacks allot of referances so some of it will need to be written again to conclude with cititations. Some of this artical is all over the place. Some things have been repeated three times in different sections. Some of artical sections can be overlapped and merged together this makes artical smaller thus allowing more room for new information to be added to artical. ( Darkcover21 ( talk) 18:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC))
I should hope some of this ort to be done to make articals notability and statis greater than it is now!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ( Darkcover21 ( talk) 18:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC))
At top of Lowestoft artical it sais; "IS A TOWN IN SUFFOLK, ENGLAND" however; i think this should be added that Lowestoft is a Seaside Resort Town thus saying; "IS A SEASIDE RESORT TOWN IN SUFFOLK, ENGLAND" and a new catergory should be added; "CATERGORY; SEASIDE RESORTS IN ENGLAND". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkcover21 ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Why does this artical need a clean up? ive only just put the stuff on here and with great detail added and your already moaning about it! What better quality could you ask for? Also you can not moan about style as i have added italics to key words in paragragh! What more could be done than that?( Darkcover21 ( talk) 18:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC))
How it is a embarisment to Wikipedia? WP:STYLE is just a pain when editing articals! Allot of the stuff is notable localy to Lowestoft and its people! But maybe not as notable on national and international scales and people! I admit some of sections could be improved more! However; this should not involve deleting it all or re-verting the edits! Instead working on improveing what has been added! Some of your edits have been good! Like when you improved writeing and added a chart on Geography section!( Darkcover21 ( talk) 18:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC))
Ok so createing a economey section to include major employment sectors, traditional or former sectors and regeneration/gentrification. My exsample being Waveney Sunrise Scheame and 1st East Regeneration both no longer exsist but projects by them have been completed. fish docks can be mention allong with harbour but remember there are more things in it than just fish docks. For me Retail and Tourism are two of most important things. Place of interest is to show important and well known locations in town that people would go to see it is not supposed to just be tourism as it is for local people two i.e the community so it is good to change name of section places of interest to cultutre and community. Hopefully keeping all images to fit into sections. Governmance is not realey important and is small section it could be got rid of. Sport and leasure is not as seperate as you think as it can come under tourism, culture and community. ( Darkcover21 ( talk) 22:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC))
ok so Governance, Sport and leisure sections stay seperate as for createing a economey section to include major employment sectors, traditional or former sectors and regeneration/gentrification. My exsample being Waveney Sunrise Scheame and 1st East Regeneration both no longer exsist but projects by them have been completed.
fish docks can be mention allong with harbour but remember there are more things in it than just fish docks. For me Retail and Tourism are two of most important things.
Place of interest is to show important and well known locations in town that people would go to see it is not supposed to just be tourism as it is for local people two i.e the community so it is good to change name of section places of interest to cultutre and community. Hopefully keeping all images to fit into sections.( Darkcover21 ( talk) 22:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC))
Not proposed by me, but to start the discussion, I agree entirely. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 22:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Not proposed by me either (you're really supposed to start a discussion when you propose the merger btw!). I tend to disagree - too much content here anyway and the Port is reasonably notable in itself - I think it would survive an AfD easily for example. My opinion is that it would lead to the main Lowestoft article, which is already rather too long imo, becoming increasingly bloated. A more suitable merge, imo, would be to merge the Port of Lowestoft with Lake Lothing as there's already some duplication there, although that wouldn't necessarily reflect the outer harbour.
Pros and cons of this. I'd suggest seeking a wider range of opinions about what to do with it, although I would tend to think that merging with Lowestoft would be the least helpful option unless a major prune is going to be undertaken - see, for examples, Kings Lynn or Fleetwood, both of which are also ABP ports. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 22:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok so no need to merge it with Lowestoft artical however; could merge it with Lake Lothing. I wanted to say allow it is called ABP Port of Lowestoft this is just a name and it is infact a harbour. So whilst it is a harbour can cater for most sea vessels. But it cannot handel massive oil tankers and container ships or other massive vessels that you would expect to find in a port. Harbours are generally smaller than Ports. I think this should be added to artical along with more information on idustrys and services at Lowestoft Harbour.( Darkcover21 ( talk) 18:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC))
New section added culture and community this was added to improve other artical sections as part of a clean up and was disscused with user:Blue Square Thing this section should not be removed. ( Darkcover21 ( talk) 20:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC))
Where as there may not be a consensus this is why i mentioned notibilaty of Lowestoft artical. Along with lack of sources. As already said it does not mean what is wrote in artical is not true allow there not many referances. ( Darkcover21 ( talk) 23:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC))
The topic of this article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding, sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. This artical is not of majour importance or notability and lacks some sources. It would be good if some more sources could be added to back the claims. Allow i will say that the claims are true evenknow they are not sourced allot. ( Darkcover21 ( talk) 21:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC))
I have ofen been told bye User; Charles not to list things in wiki. However; notable people section is in list format. Allow; for this particuler section it is difficult to put it in any other format other than lists. Otherwise; in paragraphs it looks all jumbled up information. Where as a list seperates people and there definition clearly.( Darkcover21 ( talk) 23:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC))
Looking through the notable people section, I'm thinking that The Darkness should be listed as the actual band members? as the section is actually notable 'people'. Does anyone agree? Also not all members of the band are from Lowestoft. I think the members were listed as individuals before but were merged together a while ago?
I also think Reece Ritchie should be added to the notable people section, as his popularity is rising very quickly, but I think I have seen a discussion about him somewhere before on here? I didn't want to get it added if someone disagrees with his notability?
Ryublue ( talk) 10:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Generally the minimum requirement for a listing in a notable people from X section is that they have their own article, or significant coverage on a larger article (e.g. if they're part of a band). Equally generally the larger the settlement the greater the notability and greater the connection with the place they need to have, ideally also it should be the principle place they are associated with (or one of a couple of places they have about equal affiliation to). Reece Ritchie does have an article, and that article states he was educated in Lowestoft, so he does have the minimum, but the notable people section is quite long and could do with going through (see below) so I'd hold off adding anyone for the moment. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The current list of notable people is very long and seems to include people with some quite tennuous links to the town. I've never been to Lowestoft, and have not heard of most of these people, so I have no idea about them other than the list annotations and their articles. Here are my comments on the current crop - these are all my opinion and I'm probably wrong about at least some of them!
Remember, I could be wrong! Thryduulf ( talk) 12:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately a number of the images in use on this page just now are copyvios - the red arrows, Kirkley shopping centres, Historic High Street, Britten Centre and Claremont Pier certainly are - I've indicated where on my user page and have tagged them as speedies over at the Commons - so the chances are they'd disappear. These are all the responsibility of Darkcover21 oddly enough. I think the RN patrol one probably definitely is a copyvio as well - and given that the others are I'd be concerned about the South Pier one as well.
Sorry about that - I'd delete them myself usually, although it's not a bad thing to have pointed it out here. There are loads of good ones on geograph we can replace these with eventually fwiw. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 20:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Given the issues that this article has had recently (and not so recently tbf) I've been working on a rewrite in my sandbox - you can take a look here: User:Blue Square Thing/draft Lowestoft article. Whilst I'm very aware of WP:OWN issues, it's been suggested tome by a couple of people who have seen it that it might be useful to make a more or less wholesale replacement of the current article with it and then use it as a base for moving forward. I'd like to gather more opinion on that! I don't make any assumption that the sandbox version is "finished". It's not, and it desperately needs other people to write some content as my written style is a bit rubbish sometimes. But it might make a better base than the current article. The specific things I'm looking at include:
There's still lots to do - some more on the offshore industry perhaps, and along with that more reference to links with Yarmouth probably. The Lead needs lots of work - I'm rubbish with leads - demography needs working on (I have some numbers but it'll take some time to develop them) and I'm not that interested in government stuff or religion. Images will be needed eventually as well. I'd really appreciate opinions on whether or not wholesale replacement is a good idea. Given the history of this article I can't stress enough that I'm not trying to own it and that a range of opinions is crucial. In related stuff, I've prodded articles on Lowestoft Dockland Railway and Lowestoft local elections and may well do so to Lowestoft Mayor - or merge it anyway. I also feel it might be useful to archive this page - perhaps sticking everything pre-2011 in an archive? Blue Square Thing ( talk) 10:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
There obviously needs to be new starting point for this artical but rewriting it entirely is not a wise thing to do. I would work at artical section by section until all of it has been looked at and main features included with a bit of detail not just brief statements of five words. Otherwise anybody who doesnot know about Lowestoft and looks at this artical will not understand it. If any new information comes along that can be added later as doing this is only starter. But remember not all sections need doing some are ok. ( 2.101.11.234 ( talk) 22:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC))
OK, done it before we end up with this getting protected again :-) I've no doubt that we'll have lots of information about Kirkley shopping centre or the attractions of the South Pier added before tomorrow, but never mind - let's see if we can get this improved again now and then take it to peer review for more ideas. Notable people probably still too long fwiw. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 07:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is it when i try and contribute to this artical or ones related to it. People try and stop me from editing. Especially when the other people do not give a toss or dam and no care what so ever for Lowestoft or other articals about things in it. ( 92.28.247.119 ( talk) 14:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC))
Most other people contribute to Lowestoft and related articals. So people should not keep reporting things as spam or vandalism. As it is not spam or vandalism all it is contributing to articals. I am more than happy to talk about changes but it always seems others do not take any notice of talks about suggest changes. ( 92.28.247.119 ( talk) 14:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC))
Other nasty people on here are just trying to spite me. You all should not try and stop me from editing or contributing to Lowestoft and related articals. As i have as much right as you to do so.( 92.28.247.119 ( talk) 14:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC))
I made a request for partial protection on this page earlier today (at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Lowestoft). I count 6 IP addresses, all probably sockpuppets of Darkcover (and reported as such), editing today, including an uncompleted AfD (again) and a Speedy note (again). Ho hum. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 22:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
A surfer from London has died after getting into difficulty off coast at Lowestoft, Suffolk. I was thinking whether there could be a little mention of this on Lowestoft artical. As surfing is popular sport off Lowestoft coast and this iccident of surfer dieng was notable and rare. There are allot of references for this incident.
92.29.112.24 ( talk) 12:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Note guidance at WP:UKCITIES which says:
The Britten Centre, London Road North, Kirkley shops, the Triangle Market place or even the Historic High Street are not notable in a regional or national context. Nor, for that matter, is your best mates uncle's paper shop or the oh so helpful carpet store down the road that did your nanas front room on the cheap. The very brief mentions we already have here are probably way too much anyway. The article doesn't need non-notable trivia like that getting in the way. It's been added time and again - let's actually work on the areas the article needs work to move it beyond B status. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 15:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know the best place to find population data? I noticed the population used to be 72,339 but was changed recently to 64,358. I've looked in the 2001 census and the population was 57,746 ten years ago. Does anyone have the true value? Or should we wait until the 2011 data is available? Ryublue ( talk) 09:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The Census in 2011 said the population was 70,945 and the Waveney District council said the population of the town (including Oulton and Great Yarmouth) is 71,010. I live in Lowestoft and Oulton and Carlton Colville are part of Lowestoft so the figure of 58,000 is incorrect. Link to Census website. http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/query/asv2htm.aspx
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.162.77 ( talk) 20:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Ive added Pakefield Lighthouse as a Landmark it has a referance.
Pakefield Lighthouse, located at Pontin's Holiday Park on cliff tops in Pakefield at Lowestoft, it was built and opened in 1831 but light was first lit in 1832. [1] It stands 34 feet above sea level and emits a red light which has a range of 9 miles. But it was extinguished in 1864. In 2000 it was converted for use as a coastwatch station as apart of sea safety group. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.251.234 ( talk) 00:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
In Georgaphy ive added November 2007 Tidal Surge with Referances.
In November 2007 there was a North Sea tidal surge which was combination of high tides and gale force winds it was considered worst flooding in 50 years. [2] [3] [4] [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.18.89 ( talk) 12:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Ive added 2002 flood to geography section with referance.
Torrential Rain caused a flood in town in October 2002. [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.245.7 ( talk) 12:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Ive added St Peters Tower Block to Landmarks with a referance.
St Peters Tower Block, located at Chapel Street and Factory Street it is made up of flats and Lowestoft's skyline is dominated by it. In 2003 it was modernised and £2m was spent on repairs. [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.24.31 ( talk) 21:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Ive added Plasmor LTD Grain Silo to Landmarks with a referance.
Plasmor LTD Grain Silo, located at Inner Harbour on Commercial Road it is used for shipping grain to and from other countries. It also dominates Lowestoft's skyline and was refurbished by Folcrete Restoration Services LTD. [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.24.31 ( talk) 22:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone agree, and if so, does anyone have, a better image for the top right of the page? To me, the image of the old beach shelters (which are no longer there) really don't say 'Lowestoft'. Shouldn't this photo be an image of the town, or a main landmark? Ryublue ( talk) 11:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
First; I have lived in Lowestoft for twenty years. I read this "talk" and the article and see the typical Wikipedia discussions: strange edits praising a town to high-heaven (or doing it down), a total misunderstanding of what academic writing should be (anything negative even if supported is seen as personal own view), obsession with "pet hates" and local political legends (most of which are not specific to the town or so specific to a certain mind-set or pressure group). Also there is a belief here that the word "article" is spelt "artical" and that the possessive "its" is written "it's" If someone is afflicted by dyslexia, that requires our understanding, but when those who simply are sloppy in their writing are "demanding" clean-ups and so on, we know that Wikipedia is going sadly downmarket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.124.17 ( talk) 10:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I like to make a suggestion for improving the article in regards to the town's history. Could we include information on the town's development and changes during the latter half of the 20th century, after WWII? There's quite some notable events that occurred here, that could be detailed - the closure of the town's swing bridge; the effect of the flood of 1953; the loss of prominent landmarks in the town, such as Tuttle's Department Store (but not building), and St. John's Church; the decline of the fishing industry; and so forth. I think it would be nice if we could do this. And maybe possibly, more research could be done about the developments of the town in the 19th century; I know we mention Sir Peto and his railway, but perhaps mention of the Port of Lowestoft's construction should be included, the impact of tourism, and such like might be something else to consider? GUtt01 ( talk) 22:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This is now March 2019, and I have edited the Lowestoft entry to reflect the most recent (2015) and final WDC elections, along with the forthcoming 2019 changes to the District Council following amalgamation with Suffolk Coastal.
In doing so, I notice that there are sections which lack the most recent information e.g. 2011 Census data, and a number of other things.
If others are agreeable, I will make a start on what I think may be needed.
Roaringboy 11:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaringboy ( talk • contribs)
A seven-word mention when it's shown later in the year will more than suffice. Bmcln1 ( talk) 13:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect London Road North. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 26#London Road North until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 09:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)