Talk:Gosport

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

Railway[edit]

The article states that Gosport is the largest town in Europe without a railway station - surely this should read the largest in Britain - Reykjavik in Iceland has no station and has a population in excess of 100,000 however Iceland does not have a public railway system. There have been three small railways, but none became part of the public transport network



Further to this claim, despite the cited source, I'm not sure it's actually correct. As I understand it, Dudley in fact is the largest town with no railway station in Britain. Coseley railway station, Lye railway station, Stourbridge Junction railway station, and Stourbridge Town railway station are all within Dudley MBC's administrative area, but none of them serve Dudley proper. Cheers, DWaterson 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Dudley's article it says that there is a railway station a mile from the town centre, is this correct because if so I would class Dudley as having a train station? I would agree that this statement is proberly incorrect and has been added by a local who has heard this claim. It may be worth rewording this to say that "It is widespread myth that Gosport town centre is 7 miles from fareham although if you want to get a boat there is a railway Station in Portsmouth
Thoughts on the matter?
JakeJRobinson (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Present day[edit]

Today, the area is renowned for a swelling amount of Conservative support. In a recent survey, many cited the local government as the reasoning behind a "cowardly" police force, one that fails to deal with the threat of actual crime. Whilst aware of many situations in the area, the police are known to focus time and energy on underage drinking, rather than crime that poses a more considerable threat.

Another controversial happening was the implication of parking charges in the towns' main carparks. Many citizens fail to see the point of them, as their financial purpose hasn't come to light. A local counsellor, Peter Edgar, one of the individuals responsible for the charges, recently was fined for parking without paying. He, however, got away without paying as a counsellor. Obviously, the democracy of this small town is flawed, at best. The local planning permitter is also prone to allowing planning permission to his former friends, another reason why the council is a complete failure.

Peter Viggers, the local MP, has been slow to respond with the evolution of politics. Nobody seems to be accountable for any of the town's flaws.

Cite source. Some of that looks libellous too.Tearlach 17:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The town is in posession of a Millenium Sundial, the latest of the town's tourist attractions. However, whilst the obvious objective of the clock was to have it run for the entirety of the new millenium, it stopped working in 2004, a mere 4 years into its lifespan. However, the latest International Festival Of The Sea became an attraction for outsiders. Wrote this instead, although I fear it gives less actual information than what was written before. SURELY as a resident you know about the parking charges? And that the News reported Peter Edgar had indeed been excused from paying? Or am I the only one who reads anything?

Transport[edit]

Moved from railway section: maybe usable, but currently unencyclopedic. Tearlach 14:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This will of course end the eyesore that has occured since the closure, but will not preserve Gosports heritage.

This gives Gosport transport problems...

RAIL: See above, Gosport has no rail connection.
FERRY: A passenger ferry to Portsmouth is it, and if you don't live near the ferry port, it costs a fortune to park your car all day in the nearby car park.
PLANE: Well it doesn't need one, but for the records, Gosport doesn't have an airport.
ROAD: The only other connection. To Portsmouth (where a large amount of the residents work), there is the A32 (urban, single carriageway) for 4 miles and then the M27 and M275. This is the only numbered road in Gosport that doesn't go to Southampton, and so this causes the A32 to be under capicity, and this causes tailbacks into Fareham and onto the motorways...

More celebrities[edit]

Just found this verification for Roger Black, plus this list: good selection, but again needs verification. Tearlach 14:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Black lived down Western Way in Alverstoke in the 1980s. I lived nearby and went past his house on the way to school. I couldn't say whether or not he was born there, but he certainly lived there, and Alverstoke is in Gosport -whatever the Alverstocracy like to think! Naturenet | Talk 16:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Peter John Viggers was born in Gosport and served as conservative MP from 1974-2009, when he stepped down as a result of investigations into MP expenses. He was chairman of formerly Nasdaq-listed Tracer Petroleum Coporation when I served as CEO--Stevejac1 (talk) 11:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC), and he previously served on the board early in the life of Premier Consolidated Oilfields. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevejac1 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

The town is in posession of a Millennium Sundial, the latest of the town's tourist attractions. However, whilst the obvious objective of the clock was to have it run for the entirety of the new millennium, it stopped working in 2004, a mere 4 years into its lifespan. Another blunder by the Council was the introduction of the Fountain, and the installation of Non-waterproof pumps. The pumps were exposed to water via a tunnel to Portsmouth Habour

This paragraph is not really in line with Wikipedias Neutral POV style and I don't understand about the water pumps. I don't want to jump in and rewrite without giving the original author(s) a chance to correct.--Gaspode the Wonder Dog 10:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten this section, deleting irrelevancies and adding sources. The original edit was made by an anonymous editor several months ago, so I doubt they will be returning to remove their intentionally NPOV text. DWaterson 20:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work.--Gaspode the Wonder Dog 20:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geog of Gosport[edit]

Do you think that the Geography of Gosport article should be merged with this one as instead a seperate article? It could be a seperate section and still hve plenty of room for expansion. Simply south 18:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems to be excessive to have a seperate article describing the geography of the town —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuttah68 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 5 May 2006
I am currently in the process of rewriting Geography section as the current one is factually incorrect. --Rh205 (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns in Hampshire[edit]

Just to note that Gosport is having an interesting effect on [Category:Towns in Hampshire]. Can it be fixed? I think Gosport should really just be listed as a town and not have lots of 'extra' subsections and links? Ben 11:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


External Links[edit]

On Gosport News I'm about to add links to my commercial site Gosport Pages, Gosport News is free to contribute and has been getting 1,000 visits per month, 1% from Wikipedia and I want to try to sell site sponsorship to pay for the running of the site. Would any of this break Wiki rules?--Gavinturner 21:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any external link with the sole purpose of helping an organisation is considered spam. Unless it is relevant to the article it will be removed. Nuttah68 21:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not meaning to be pedantic, but any external link to any web site that is not an individual is "helping an organisation", so does that mean the link to Gosport BC will be removed?. What I'm trying to produce is a web site that promotes & reports events Gosport in general whilst making a (megre) living. Linking though to Gosport Pages from Wiki would be spam. but if I link from news to pages would that be classed as spam? I'm trying to stay within the rules & would like some guidance. The links would be to my accommodation, sport & leisure and tourism sections, so in effect would be directing the people interested in visiting Gosport to be deep linked through to relevent content. I'm not trying to bombard the people (9 last month) who click through to meaningless ads.--Gavinturner 22:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand what you are asking here Gavin, but the answer is simple whatever the question. And here it is. Wikipedia can have no interest in whether or not your site is sponsored. If you want to link from your pages to Wikipedia, go ahead and link as much as you like. If, on the other hand, you want to link from Wikipedia to your pages, there's nothing to stop you doing so but be warned that if you do so and another editor thinks that the link is not beneficial to the Gosport page, it will be removed. Guidelines are here. So don't sweat it, be bold, and be polite if somebody else reverts you. Naturenet | Talk 09:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that helped. I was actually following part 3 of the what not to link section (discuss first) without realising it. IMHO the site www.gosportnews.org.uk does follow the guidelines set, as it is relevant and unbiased, my problem is if I further link through to Gosport Pages, which is purely advertising, will I upset and offend & lose the original link? To be honest I'd rather lose revanue on the sites than the link from Wikipedia. I'll put the through links up and if it causes offnce I'll remove them again.Gavinturner 14:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Costigan[edit]

George Costigan, the actor, is said to be from Gosport.[citation needed] He is most famous for his role in Rita, Sue and Bob Too; despite being from the south coast, he managed to put on an almost-perfect Bradford accent in the film.

Needs reliable sourcing. May well be true, but the only place I can find it is here, which is a personal website. Gordonofcartoon 01:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

error[edit]

i have tried to add a new infobox but it isnt working. doesanyone know whats wrong?Blackwave...... (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House prices[edit]

Moved for improvement/saving?

In Gosport you get a lot more property for your money. Not only has Gosport got the lowest house prices in Hampshire but according to the BBC [2] the only other area in the south east of England with lower property prices is Luton. These lower property prices make Gosport attractive to people who work outside of the town who commute each day.

Bobs107: read WP:NOR. House prices are worth mentioning, but not when framed with unsourced editorial. If "lower property prices make Gosport attractive to people who work outside of the town who commute each day", find a source that actually says so. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Gosport Partnership[edit]

http://www.gosportpartnership.co.uk - removed for previous linkspamming; but is it worth including?

It's probably a bit harsh to call it spam, but I'd certainly call it non-notable. The Gosport Partnership is active in Gosport, but so are a lot of organisations. It's no different from any number of economic development partnerships and does not appear to be distinguished in any way that marks it out as encyclopaedic. The website does not add anything relevant to the Gosport page itself and doesn't tell the enquirer anything new about Gosport. So no. Naturenet | Talk 11:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a bit harsh to call it spam
For here, true, but it went to a few other articles where it was considerably less relevant.[3] Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection[edit]

I've requested temporary semi-protection [4] to stop this twit that keeps removing the twin town section. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmph: declined on grounds of insufficient disruption. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the total moron is continuing, do you think you could have another try? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.10.142 (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give it another go; I'll support it. Naturenet | Talk 21:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK: retried [5]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And blah-declined-on-basis-of-insufficient-disruption-blah again [6]. WTF is semi-protection for if not this kind of thing? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Gladwell[edit]

Malcolm Gladwell famous author was born in Gosport

Citation? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gosport and Fareham Inshore Rescue Service Merge[edit]

Result of the merge proposal was to not merge. — Bility (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Gosport and Fareham Inshore Rescue Service article should be merged with this one as the organisation is too small to warrant having a separate article. The text from this article also contains sections which self promote the organisation.

  • Oppose - I would disagree with the proposal of a merge, it is a charity like any other and is entitled to its own article, the GOSPORT article describes a town, it should not include a charity. If this were to be standard across every charity article it would be impossible to find them on Wikipedia as they are all hidden within the town or cities wiki article they are based in.
The same as any company, you wouldn't put all information about say IBM under Portsmouth's article just because it's main UK HQ is based in Portsmouth? It would be worth putting a link on GOSPORT article saying that there is a lifeboat station called GAFIRS in the town and then link back to the GAFIRS article. I would agree that this article may need some minor re-writing as it is self-promoting. Maybe the text is copied from their own website? 89.243.201.233 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This article refers to a charity and you're suggesting we merge it into an article about a town? I don't think that is the correct thing to do 85.158.138.19 (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Merge is not the right solution to this problem. I agree the GAFIRS page is not encyclopaedic and in dire need of some independent editing. And it is also true that usually a small charity wouldn't warrant its own page, but in this case there is enough info on that page to probably make a decent article out of it that will stand alone. Naturenet | Talk 10:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Agree with all above, the article should not be merged but could do with some tweeking BungleKnowledge (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I have just started making ammendments to the article to make it less biased and promoting. I disagree with the merger proposal, there is no logical reason to do so. JakeJRobinson (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bus Rapid Transit[edit]

A recent edit regarding the effect of the rapid transit system was removed as it was stated that passenger numbers were nowhere near what Hampshire CC had originally expected (without any cites) and that the effect on vehicular traffic was also nowhere near what had been forecasted (again without cite). With no cites, these statements could be taken as POV, rather than fact, especially as the bus operator has declared an 11.8% increase in total passenger figures using the bus services between Fareham and Gosport since the BRT went live [7] and [8] refer

Should the statements be cited, then happy to see them come back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.85.240 (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Gosport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Gosport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gosport Borough Council[edit]

No article exists at Borough of Gosport, the boundaries are long-standing, see User:Crouch, Swale/District split but aren't that similar, an article should probably exist either on the district or on the council (like Eastbourne Borough Council, but not both) per WP:UKDISTRICTS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gosport&oldid=1207038101"