Talk:Weston-super-Mare

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWeston-super-Mare has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 1, 2010Good article nomineeListed

Did you know[edit]

New articles relating to Weston-super-Mare that have featured on the Main Page:

Submit new articles at: Template talk:Did you know

Silica[edit]

I've altered the article to reflect to information discovered on Weston's continued space exploration plans. An official announcement on the issue is expected to be made by the town's mayor in Jan 2007. - Miser

External links[edit]

I accept CLW's edit taking away the www.cial.org.uk link but, that site, which I acknowledge is mine (and so maybe I would be seen as self-promoting), did start as and still is to a large extent a Weston-super-Mare interest site. But my main purpose (besides getting myself into the world of WIKIpedia editing and learning) was to get CCC in the work...

Other things: I must remind myself of the exact name and achievements of Weston's (Nobel Prize winning?) physicist - Eddington I think ?

Johnrcrellin 06:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC) (Now have I got the use of this page right ?)[reply]

A Google search of "Eddington" and "Nobel" reveals that this was Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington. There's a W-s-M link from his entry, but an Eddington ref in the W-s-M entry would certainly be a good thing.
And yes, I'm glad you're happy with my removal of the link. The wikilink through to the Commercial Cable Company entry from the W-s-M entry is certainly appropriate, and the external link to www.cial.org.uk from the CCC entry is also appropriate, but the external link to www.cial.org.uk from the W-s-M was less so.
Just one suggestion for future comments on this talk page - if you click on the "+" next to the "edit this page" tab, it will start a new section (for which you can insert a title - this will make things easier if more topics get added here) at the bottom of the page. CLW 08:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One other historical tit-bit of note is that a local chapter of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, a coterie of late Victorian mystical magicians, briefly existed in Weston-super-Mare beginning in 1888. The W-s-M local was named the Osiris Temple. The Golden Dawn's most notorious member was Aleister Crowley, but their most illustrious member was William Butler Yeats. Yeats and Crowley did not get on well with each other at all.

Another, later, member of the Golden Dawn, who joined in 1919, was the author Violet Firth, known to her readers as Dion Fortune. Her most popular novel, The Sea Priestess, was set in the area around Weston-super-Mare (using fictionalized geographical names), and its focus of magical activity was the old fort on the headland at Brean Down, which in the novel was remade into a magical Goddess temple. This book has had an enduring influence on modern Wicca, Goddess religion, and Magick, with its veiled descriptions of sacred sex.

--172.208.21.141 20:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jomo

SeaQuarium / sea-life centre[edit]

I've been watching this with amusement - and I guess it is the sort of thing Wikipedia contributors are 'never going to see eye-to-eye on.

As I see it a sea-life centre is a generic (and lower case !) term that describes a whole group of commercial ventures and by far the most appropriate term for an encyclopedia. Similarly I would say vacuum cleaner rather than Hoover.

Sure the previous owners did I think call it the Sea-life Centre (Upper case though !)

Johnrcrellin 15:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - the current solution works for me! CLW 21:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter Museum[edit]

The helicopter museum in Weston-super-Mare is the largest in the world. Surely it deserves more of a mention (or its own article even)?

I also removed the blatant advertising for the Operatic society.

Sub headings[edit]

At the moment the article seems a little jumbled and I think it could do with some sub headings and a bit more structure. does anyone agree or have suggestions for sections it could be divided into? Basement12 15:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An example of the kind of thing i mean is the Chelsea page, I think similar would be good here Basement12 15:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tidal range and mud[edit]

I thought the last couple of paragraphs needed amplification. Plus, I'm afraid it's a myth we all cling to here in Weston but the second largest tidal range tag is factually inaccurate. I am not even sure it is third as I am sure I read that there is another high(er) range somewhere in China but cannot trace the reference at the moment.

Johnrcrellin 19:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20,000 all seater stadium[edit]

I live in Weston and have never heard any mention of this project. As it is not cited, I feel that it is most likely vandalism. Unless someone has any further info on it, I'm going to remove it. I'll look into it with other residents as well. algebra man (talk · contribs) 22:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've not heard of it either ! Johnrcrellin 08:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to remove the football section altogether as, after looking through the contributions of the person who added it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.155.89.143, I feel that it is very unlikely that there is any validity to it. Algebra man 19:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes[edit]

I assume the loss of the History section was not intended by any serious editor of this page? Silliness on this article seems to be spinning out of control. I have re-instated it. Johnrcrellin 07:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm revoking the bit I put in yesterday about "-super-Mare" maybe meaning "on the edge of the moor" rather than "on sea". It's true that Geoffrey Bartlett, longtime math teacher at St. Peter's School 50 years ago, used to assert that IF it meant "on sea" it should be "super-Marem", etc. But after putting this up, I thought I should check the Latin/English dictionaries. I found that the only Latin "mar.." that could translate into "moor" is "inhabitant of Mauretania" (i.e. the north African variety). Maybe this was Barty's last joke, or a conundrum left to posterity that we can now lay to rest. He had a huge influence on my life. Thanks, whoever put up the "dubious-discuss" tag. Adrian Pollock (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was me :-), I wasn't sure you were joking or being serious, Pahari Sahib (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historic(al) Somerset[edit]

I cannot quite understand the reluctance to state in the piece the undoubted fact that, for most of its existence, Weston-super-Mare was in Somerset. POV I know - but Avon surely will soon be seen as a (regrettable) blip in history ? Leaving that aside the fact that the town was originally in Somerset and is now in an authority described as "North Somerset" are the important points. Look at old maps and I think you will see that present BANES, North Somerset and Bristol south of the Avon were indeed "North Somerset" as a division of the county. And to make it worse botanists still have a "North Somerset" that extends further south. Johnrcrellin 12:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset[edit]

It should mention that weston is still in the (Ceremonial) county of Somerset Blackwave...... (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial county is mentioned in the infobox so it is reasonable that it should also be mentioned in the body of the article. However it isn't reasonable to simply remove North Somerset from the article - hence my reversion of your edit. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tides[edit]

Maybe the wording needs improving. (As shown by recent revision attempt that completely missed the point.) The way tides work they have the highest RANGE at the same time of day each cycle (I didn't know this until I moved to Weston and observed it for myself.) So when it is high tide at say 12.00 midday it is never VERY high and because the beach is so shallow, changing to mud as you go out, the visitor does not get to see the sea much during their day. If you stay overnight when high tide is at say 8.00 am then you get to see the sea right up close. Johnrcrellin (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand what you say, but would like to see it cited from elsewhere. If you look at the next week's tides in Weston you will see that as the tide gets later in the morning its height gets less. However, on Tuesday 15th high tide is late in the morning at 11:07 and is still a relatively high 10.8 metres. At this height the tide is quite a way up the beach. I too lived in Weston for a long time, and still live nearby, so know what it looks like when you only get a 9 metre high tide. --TimTay (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are several overlapping cycles at work and when the tides are at their highest in the yearly cycle you do get a reasonable tide at times like 11.00 - but the yearly cycle doesn't favour day trippers in the summer. The practical outcome is that most of the time when the beach is busy the sea is a long way off ! As always trying to get a complex but relevant point distilled down to a short paragraph is hard ! Johnrcrellin (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find this referenced on an external website or in a book anywhere? It would be really good to add it to the article. --TimTay (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the wording which referred to high tide occuring during the morning and then late afternoon. This is simply not the way that the tidal cycle operates. High (or low) tide can occur at ANY point during a 24 hour period. While the HEIGHT of those tides also varies, a scan of the Weston Tide Tables will illustrate that the highest of the high tides in the course of a month can occur at a variety of times. To state that this will occur early in the morning or late afternoon is factually incorrect. Ron519098 (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be some truth in the original comment, I just don't understand why it is. If you look at Weston's tide times for Jan & Feb 2010 ([1] [2]) you will see that the 12m+ tides all occur first thing in the morning or in the evening, rarely during the time a tourist would typically be on the beach. However, the phenomenon isn't unique to Weston, I suspect it happens with tides all over the world, so I think it is right to delete the text from the article. --Simple Bob (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and if you look at other months you'll see that the highest tides occur at times ranging from 06:30ish to 10:30ish. Ron519098 (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spam[edit]

This article shouldn't be spammed with details of that pier fire, and certainly not on 5 places throughout that article. That's very amateuristic. The pier has its own article where all the details can be added. This article is about the town, and as such should tell the history of the town, not the history of each event happening to each specific building in it. Moreover, adding a name in the famous people list as "Town's official biggest pier fan" seems rather nonsense to me. --194.7.246.43 (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Amateurish"? Have you looked at what you did in your revert - you wiped out plenty of other valid efforts and improvements. Pince Nez (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Layout[edit]

Looks like there's alot of activity here on an article that will be experiencing a visitor spike (for obvious reasons).

If anybody is hoping to expand the article, I'd urge them to take a breif look at WP:UKCITIES with regards to standard layout. Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  23:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I would suggest that Oldmixon (and any other suburbs) should be merged into this article as they are unlikely to ever be signifcant articles in their own right and would be thought of by most people as part of the town.— Rod talk 13:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, although I would suggest that Uphill remains separate as it does have a more distinct identity.--TimTay (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK can you suggest other suburbs which currently have their own articles (probably stubs)?— Rod talk 14:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think West Wick (which doesn't currently have an article) should probably redirect here, but what about Worle? I note St. Georges, North Somerset and Kewstoke are both separate parishes so should probably have their own entries.— Rod talk 15:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oldmixon & West Wick now merged in.— Rod talk 17:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repertory Theatres[edit]

Does the name Knightsbridge Theatre mean anything to anybody? I remember playing in a company run by Philip Barrett, husband of Eileen Herlie, in a production of Love in Idleness, around 1948. I can't Google any of this. JohnClarknew (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean the Knightstone Theatre, which closed some time ago and has now been converted into luxury apartments. Google for "knightstone island" and you will find lots of info. --TimTay (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to "Wheel of Weston" website[edit]

I have removed an external link to the Wheel of Weston web site which appears to be a purely commercial promotional site which adds nothing to the article. If anyone want to add this back again, could they discuss it here first to gain consensus?— Rod talk 14:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Culture[edit]

Why the references to various nightclubs and pubs? This is of dubious value, particularly as the life-span of many of these establishments is limited and therefore their existence ephemeral. It also smacks of desperation! Yes Weston may have limited cultural venues but a number of these establishments are simply venues for drunken nights out. I have removed the references to those which do not have some (tenuous) link to live entertainment.Ron519098 (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roald Dahl & Mandy Miller[edit]

Should Roald Dahl be included in the notable people list? It appears he spent a short period of time at a boarding school in the town, but I'm not sure that is a strong enough link. We also have Mandy Miller actress - whose article was deleted - should she be in?— Rod talk 11:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dahl should be included as he does give quite a lot of prominence to this episode in his life in his autobiographical book "Boy" [3] Johnrcrellin (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are saying that WsM was significant to Dahl ( and therefore should be included in the article about him), but was Dahl significant to WsM, which is the focus of this article?— Rod talk 06:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure but what about others ? (From memory may be wrong) Cleese didn't spend long there but he talks about WSM so significant to him and same school. I'm fairly sure Eddington was only there for a short part of his childhood and never went back... Johnrcrellin (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The standard seems to be to include those that were born in a town (eg Cleese) but I would agree to removing those that only spent a small part of their childhood there but didn't have a significance for the town (eg Edington). The relevant guideline is probably Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Notable people. The problem is if all the people who went to a particular school were included in the article about the place in which is was based it could overwhelm the article. To use a local(ish) example if all the alumni of Monkton Combe School were included in the Monkton Combe article it would nearly double the content! However I don't feel that strongly about it and if you want to Dahl back I will not remove it again, alternatively an article about St Peter's School (which we don't have at present) should definitely include Dahl.— Rod talk 08:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - and there isn't much about the school, apart from a closed alumni site which I have requested access to. Johnrcrellin (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly with adding Dahl to the article. People who went to school in the town but played no other part in its life belong in the school's article but not the town article. The same is true for people who play for sports teams in a town, unless they live in the town or play some other role in the life of the town. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 08:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few to delete from the list then I think... Johnrcrellin (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T4 On The Beach[edit]

There is an assertion in the article that acts mime their vocals as the event is being televised. Where is the evidence for this? While it may be the case that some acts mime, I find it hard to believe that this is universally the case. Ron519098 (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be lots of comments on forums etc (not WP:RS) but there is a report here (which might make it as RS) saying "producers of the T4 'On The Beach' event told the band they will be forced to mime."— Rod talk 16:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What else is needed to get this article to GA?[edit]

I've been editing this article to try to bring it closer to the guidelines at WP:UKCITIES and would be interested in what other editors think is need to get it to meet the Wikipedia:Good article criteria? Obviously we need to expand the lead to summarise the article & reference (or remove) the uncited claims, but is there anything else which would be required?— Rod talk 17:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think that the question of scope needs to be addressed. How much overlap is there between this and other local artices, in particular Uphill and Worle? The "early history" looks very thin, but of course most early development was not in the town centre.
    • There are a lot of places beond the tagged sections where we will need references.
    • There is some crossover between "culture" and "tourism". Perhaps this is to be expected due to the nature of ther town but that will not help the GA review.
    • I also think that the education and church sections need to be more rounded. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toponymy of name[edit]

The section on the name includes two sentences for which I can find no evidence "first recorded by an unknown medieval church clerk, presumably to distinguish it from other settlements named Weston in the area. It is a popular myth that the description was a later Victorian invention. Often people will write the town's name as "Weston-Super-Mare"; this however is incorrect, as "super" should always be written in lower case." The only places I can find this are mirror sites of wikipedia. Has anyone else got sources which would back these claims up? If not I propose removing them until evidence can be found.— Rod talk 10:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference for latin name orgin, removing the "unknown clerk" bit because that isn't covered by the reference. I removed the other bits though as I agree they need citing. I suggest they be put back if refs can be found. --Simple Bob (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phone Code[edit]

A large number of websites contain an incorrect spelling duplicating an error present in Ofcom's (previously Oftel) UK area code list for the last decade. 01934 was listed as Weston-Super-Mare in the official UK area code list and only recently corrected to Weston-super-Mare, see their Errata. 212.139.105.91 (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Weston-super-Mare/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jhbuk (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments: Seems reasonable - I'll do a proper review when I have more time later

  • A few places without citations
  • I'll look for these
  • Ref 26 needs proper formatting
  • Done
  • I'd rather you didn't use IMDb as a source (ref 70)
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    I haven't spotted any real problems here. There are a couple of short paragraphs that should be combined with others.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Generally good, but I'm not sure about a couple of refs (7 seems to be some sort of wiki/amateur site; couple more IMDbs left as well). Can I also ask why some refs have italics in and others do not for the same things (reg:efs 25,26). Ref 68 needs presenting properly.
  • The italics seen to be generated by "cite web" when the work parameter is used.— Rod talk 15:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So some use cite web and others don't? I just don't understand why, for example, BBC is in italics in ref 85, and not in 99 or 30. Jhbuk (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where BBC News was include as work=BBC News it was italicised, where it is publisher=BBC News it isn't - hopefully fixed now.— Rod talk 15:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find different references for IMDb (110,111)? What do you think about ref 7? Jhbuk (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done for Con O'Neill, but I can't find an alternative for Sean Martin. Ref 7 - Magalithic portal is used on lots of other wp pages, but I see what you mean as anyone can add data. I've backed it up with a second ref from the local residents association.— Rod talk 17:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good; IMDb isn't completely unsuitable, but I just prefer to avoid it wherever I can. I think the only thing now are the religious demographics that seem to be lacking. Jhbuk (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    One more thing: I can't see anything about religious groups under demographics, and the buildings section doesn't discuss it either. Jhbuk (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Many articles like this have some bias in their "culture" sections, but this article seems good. My one slight criticism is that the article mentions all of these new tourist attractions, but doesn't really say whether that have worked: could we possibly have some actual visitor figures comparing before and after?
  • I've added a section in tourism on visitor numbers, but specifics on particular attractions do not appear to be available.— Rod talk 17:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    No caption for one in "21st century". Otherwise good
|:*I've struggled with this. Because the size is defined in pixels it doesn't show up. If you leave it as thumb it is half the size of the page - help appreciated.— Rod talk 15:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed it. Jhbuk (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - I'll have to check the code in case I have anopther really long thin pic to do.— Rod talk 17:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Overall: Very well done. A lot of effort has clearly gone into this
    Pass:

Post-2010 Revival[edit]

Weston seems to have undergone a revival since the seafront and pier were rebuilt and reopened in 2010. It is now an extremely nice place to visit and often very busy. However most of the visitor number and visitor trend figures quoted in the article predate the new seafront/pier and thus seem to focus on decline. This gives an incorrect impression to the reader.

My guess, as father of a family that visits 3-6 times a year, is that visitor numbers have been persistently increasing year-on-year since 2010. Where might we find a reliable source that could confirm/deny such a statistical progression? Ideally we need a single source that shows 2010, 2011 and 2012 numbers collected in a consistent fashion. If such a revival is supported by sources, I would like to add a "Revival" subsection. Andrew Oakley (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great suggestion and as a frequent visitor I would echo your comments. The place has really come up since the pier reopened and the works relating to the new wall and road-redirection took place on the front. --Bob Re-born (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this - Tourism figures 2002-2012 Senington (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Senington[reply]

Wartime / bombing[edit]

The figure of 17,000 incendiary bombs is not supported by the cited web page. I found a different page which says 3,000 incendiary bombs - http://www.thewestonmercury.co.uk/news/weston_super_mare_at_war_1_777642 but no reliable support for 17,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.8.39 (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Looking at the source used in the article I can't see the 17,000 figure either, however the Weston Mercury source you give says the 3,000 figure was on January 4, 1941 so a much larger figure for the whole of the war is quite possible.— Rod talk 08:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This site does have the 17,000 figure but I'm not sure it can be used as a reliable source and neither can this one.— Rod talk 08:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17,000 for the war is possible, but the article presently puts that figure on two dates - which I would suspect is a single night's raid. "On 3 and 4 January 1941, 17,000 incendiary bombs fell on the town.[28]" It was a big night for Bristol too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Blitz#Following_raids Perhaps worth using "Five high explosive bombs and three thousand incendiaries fell on the town, killing 34 people and injuring a further 85" from http://www.walkingthebattlefields.com/2012/11/the-clevedon-blitz-night-of-4th-and-5th.html (or a better source if one can be found) - which indirectly makes the point that counting incendiaries gives a misleading impression of a raid? 109.158.8.39 (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(On the site you linked it does say "and surrounding cities" which rather undermines the figure) 109.158.8.39 (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting help identifying photo subject[edit]

Can anyone here provide any help in identifying this particular building? Kelly hi! 18:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, disregard. Identified as Commons:Category:Silica, Weston-super-Mare. Kelly hi! 18:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
see also my pic File:Westernsilica.JPG which I described by the local (slightly derogatory) term "The Carrot".— Rod talk 18:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodw: I have to agree! Kelly hi! 18:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image additions and changes[edit]

Anybody watching this page lately will notice that I've added and changed several of the images, including the main image. These changes are explained on the history page, but I just wanted to reiterate them here:

  • I switched the main image from the one taken in 2008 to a recently-uploaded one from 2020, showing the pier with the newer pavilion (and arguably giving a better idea of the 'look' of the town than the aeroplane image)
  • I've added a view over Weston in the 1890s to the history section to illustrate its development as a Victorian seaside town; it seemed strange that these wonderful and illustrative images were available for use in the Commons and yet none appeared in the article
  • I switched the modern-day image of Birnbeck Pier in the history section to one from around 1900, which seemed more appropriate given that the section is about the town's initial Victorian development
  • I added an image of Victorian architecture commonly found around the town to the architecture section, to illustrate what it says about local stone buildings
  • I switched the image of the now-closed SeaQuarium with one of the now-open Tropicana, as this seemed more relevant to the economy/tourism section
  • I switched the image of the Grand Pier from 2011 to a recently-uploaded one from 2020, which I think gives a better idea of the pavilion's scale with the people on the beach nearby, and which also shows the tea room on the back of the pier
  • I switched the Knightstone Island picture to one that shows the whole island, rather than just one of the buildings, to better illustrate what the article says about the island

Hopefully nobody has any objections to the changes. Some of the old pictures have been in this article a while and I feel that the changes better reflect the town as it is currently. Helpful987 (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've also now switched the image of the Silica to one that shows the whole structure, giving a better idea of its scale and its location within the town centre. Helpful987 (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]