Jump to content

Talk:Barrow-in-Furness

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

This link was added to the article after discussion on the WP Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See: WP:RSN exercise. No information from the CCHT link has been put into the body of the article in the form of citations because it has not yet been verified for 100% accuracy by the Victoria County History project for Cumbria. (This will take some years to do). Laplacemat (talk) 10:10, 09 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furness

[edit]

Barrow was founded on the iron and steel industry (plus its potential for a deep-water port and the coming of the railway to allow the export of that iron). Shipbuilding came later. I don't think the town is the administrative capital of Furness. Furness is not an administrative area.

Wind turbines

[edit]

What's this about wind turbines in Morecambe Bay? Are they there now or are they just planned?

Gas being used in the generation of electricity at Barrow: I took out a sentence about this, but then I remembered that Roosecote power station was re-built a few years ago, and I have a feeling it's now a gas-fired station and presumably does therefore take gas direct from the terminal. If that's so perhaps it could be explained - with ref. to Roosecote.

Another point about the gas terminal: When such a terminal was mooted local authorities across the NW were up in arms about the possibility of having it on their doorstep; Barrow wasn't even on the list. Then along came some faceless suit from Barrow and invited BG to apply to locate it in or near the town. BG couldn't believe their luck. From having to defend their proposals and maybe engage in protracted planning and legal battles to get their way, now some numbskull, on behalf of another town, was inviting them in - needless to say they didn't have to think long about the offer. How many people does the terminal employ? If your can write this in a NPOV style then why not put it in the article. I'm afraid I can't! Arcturus 19:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The turbines aren't actually in Moreca,be Bay; they're beginning construction off the coast of Walney, in the Irish sea rather than Morecambe Bay. Currently a few ships out there doing whatever it is they have to do, and if you squint you can see the bottom of the turbines beginning to stick out of the water.

The power station at Roosecote is indeed gas fired, and the gas comes from the terminals via pipes under Walney Island. I think Roosecote is considered part of Barrow, rather than a seperate place. Robdurbar 09:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


County Issue

[edit]

I think suggesting Barrow remains in some way part of the 'ceremonial county' of Lancashire is more POV and/or incorrect than to mention that many locals do in fact consider the area should still be considered Lancastrian. I have put in as neutral a statement in the intoductory paragraph as I thought fit. But with a reasonable geography section already mentioning the Lancastrian history - it might be sensible not to have County issues raised in the first sentance describing the town Nogwa 02:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree that we shouldn't over emphasise the Lancashire issue - its a historical feature in the end, it is incorrect to suggest that the 'ceremonial counties' don't exist any longer - they do. It is, I agree, POV and probably original research to include the locals bit, without statistical support. Robdurbar 09:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While they exist, Barrow is in the ceremonial county of Cumbria - not Lancashire as the article was saying. The current intro 'Barrow-in-Furness is a town in northwest of England. Since 1974 it has been part of Cumbria for ceremonial purposes' is also misleading as it's inclusion within Cumbria has more than a ceremonial role. In fact it was the inclusion in Lancaster that was more 'by name' as from the late 19th century while Barrow was included in Lancaster - this was as a county borough with much administrative autonomy. Nogwa 23:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I, personally, am fine with the intro how it was, say, 24 hours ago. In the Geography section, the following text can be seen.
The town is geographically and historically part of Lancashire, but has been part of the administrative county of Cumbria since 1974.
I feel that is a fine sentence, and I suppose that could always be the one in the intro, if needs be. --Dreaded Walrus 23:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow is and always will be a part of the Duchy of Lancaster. And you can not seperate the Duchy from the historical county paletine. The Department of the Environment accepted that as such in the 1980's. Cumbria is a false county and it may well be disbanded soon anyway.

I think the history within different counties and as a county borough would be best left to the geography section and doesn't need to be gone into in the introduction. But if it is - the introduction should at least be accurate. To say it is part of the ceremonial county of Lancashire - or that it is part of Cumbria for ceremonial purposes are both misleading. The sentence you quote is fine - except that one of the interesting things about Furness as part of Lancashire is exactly that it was geographically separate from the rest of the county except by crossing the sands! Nogwa 00:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I also found that fascinating. I am not particularly excellent at putting my point across at time, but what my main thought was, is that the version that the version inserted earlier, that started off this debate, was inaccurate, as "Cumbria" is more than just a ceremonial name. It appears below "Barrow-in-Furness" on all of my mail, for example. --Dreaded Walrus 00:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cumbria is no longer a postal county and Lancashire is equally acceptable per the Royal Mail. Lancsalot 00:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is misleading. Cumbria and Lancashire are both former postal counties. Counties no longer form part of any address. Where a county is supplied, it will be ignored. MRSC 11:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On this issue, one of the reasons my own parents and grandparents offered was that since Barrow was part of Cumbria from 1974, most of the adult population were born as Lancastrians and consider the area they were born in as 'traditionally', Lancashire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.92.200 (talk • contribs) .

Cleanup

[edit]

I've just re-read this article, having not done so for several months. It is appalling! The standard of writing is that of a primary school pupil. A great deal of work needs doing to bring this up to encyclopedia level. I've tagged it for cleanup and will make a start on a re-write in due course. Arcturus 22:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow in Furness / Vickers / Vickers Armstrong

[edit]

I don't think DDH is the largest shipbuilding hall in Europe. It is definately the biggest in UK. The biggest hall in Europe is probably this [[1]]

--84.64.16.16 22:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Some suggestions regarding the Vickers and Barrow in Furness entries.

First, the shipbuilding activities at Barrow were not limited to naval vessels and considerable numbers of passenger liners and cargo ships produced. Notable amongst the customers were P&O (SS Orsova, SS Orcades, Oriana and others. The Biritish Admiral built for BP was, I think, for a very short period the largest ship in the world. With regard to naval vessels HMS Ajax (WW2), HMS Dreadnought (first RN SSN), HMS Princess Royal(Jutland), HMS Hermes (Falklands) and the Japanese Kongo deserve a mention.

Second, the importance of armaments and heavy machinery needs emphasis. Vickers and later Vickers Armstrong constructed artillery for land service and indeed naval service aboard ships built elsewhere. Examples include guns for KGV class battleships and propulsion for HMS Lion.

Third, the merger of Armstrongs and Vickers was very much a result of the collapse in demand for warships as a result of the limitations on naval construction following WW1.

Fourth, the decline in shipbuilding in the 1960's was very much a reflection of the labour difficulties particularly demarkatîon disputes between rival unions and lack of modern practices.

A link to the Barrow museum photgraphic archive would add value.

John Walkley 8th November 2006

John, there are several articles about the various incarnations of Vickers. One of these is Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. The material you mention above would certainly improve that article, but I wonder if it should be renamed to something like "Vickers (Barrow)" or "Shipbuilding at Barrow", after all, the yard was only known as VSEL for a short time. What do you think? At the moment I'm re-writing parts of the Barrow article, including the removal of material not directly relevant to the town. However, in the spirit of Wikipedia, why don't you add the material above to whichever article you think appropriate. Increasingly at Wikipedia some editors are expecting discussion prior to editing, and often intimidate people who add or edit material unilaterally. I reject that idea entirely. If you want to add or edit something, just do it. Regards, Arcturus 17:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, WP:BE BOLD. A shipbuilding at Barrow-in-Furness article would be a great addition to Wikipedia. Robdurbar 09:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have removed the gallery because all the images are not free use, until we can get some free ones it's not worth bothering with it.

Most of these photos seem to be in violation of image policies, I'll leave commented so it can be resurrected one day with free use images.<gallery> Image:Vanguard class image.jpg|''Vanguard''-class of four [[Trident missile|Trident]] ballistic missile submarines Image:HMS Manchester (D95) Type 42 destroyer.jpg|[[HMS Manchester|HMS ''Manchester'']], one of three [[Type 42 destroyers]] built by VSEL Image:HMCS Windsor SSK 877.jpg|[[HMCS Chicoutimi (SSK 879)|HMCS ''Chicoutimi'']], [[Victoria class submarine|''Victoria''-class]] attack submarine Image:HMS Invincible (R05).jpg|[[HMS Invincible (R05)|HMS ''Invincible'']] Image:Oriana_Sydney.jpg|[[SS Oriana (1959)|SS ''Oriana'']] [[Cruise Liner]], seen in [[Sydney]], [[Australia]] Image:Melbourne_Midway.jpg|[[HMAS Melbourne (R21)|HMAS ''Melbourne'']] Image:HMS Sheffield (D80).jpg|[[HMS Sheffield (D80)|HMS ''Sheffield'']] Image:HMS Albion (L14).jpg|[[HMS Albion (L14)|HMS ''Albion'']] </gallery> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kijog (talk • contribs) 12:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Cleanup (MkII)

[edit]

Again the article has descended into a poorly-written entry which features the following (in no particular order):

  • A complete absence of references (one example: a contributor went to the effort of including a major employer's URL but could not be bothered to reference the statistic of how many people it employed)
  • Poor English
  • large amounts of surplus demographic statistics (bizarrely included as the secondmost important thing behind the town's history)
  • lists of shops and businesses
  • duplicated information (which is often repeated from other more specific articles)
  • external websites which are commercial links
  • a pointless table about the town's sports clubs
  • A bloated trivia section - little if any of which is true (prove me wrong - and then reference it)

If you are going to revert any of the changes I have made - please, please reference them. Otherwise there is little point continuing ignoring the most basic policies of Wikipedia. Askam and Ireleth managed to make Good Article status, why can't its bigger brother? Have a look at it to see how it can be done. I'm a Barrovian myself - I would like nothing more to see Barrow's page as a good article, better still a featured one. At the moment it is simply embarrassing. Kijog 22:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, count me in. Let's see what we can do with this article... J Milburn 09:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section

[edit]

I have removed the chronology section, as it is blatantly redundant to the history section. Anything worth keeping can be moved as prose to history, preferably with a reference. The deleted section is below.

Chronology

[edit]

Leans very much towards recent events, and some is not Barrow specific at all. J Milburn 10:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a lot like the basic history display in the dock museum for everything up until 1970 aswell Audigex (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legionnaires' Disease

[edit]

I think we need an entire section on this, probably at the end of the history section, and perhaps a mention in the lead. I say this because this was international news- I was on holiday at the time, and saw it on CNN. It reached the front page of The Times, and, sad though it is, it is one of the most notable events in the history of Barrow. J Milburn 11:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weird, I was in Kenya at the time and I couldn't believe it when I saw Barrow flash up on CNN! Agree on this one. Kijog 11:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additions

[edit]

I have merged the trivia section into other relevant sections on the article. I hope it has helped and is satisfactory. I have also created other sections that include information about the legionnaires' outbreak, Barrow's modern history, Barrow in popular culture, as well as condensing information to make the contents at the top less confusing. I am also from Barrow, and will do whatever it takes to show how great it is. Shipbuilding wise, take a look at the newest article I have created, it contains information on almost every ship and submarine built in Barrow, whether it has a wikipedia article or not: List of Ships and Submarines Built in Barrow-in-Furness, UK

That article is fantastic, well done. J Milburn 15:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

statistics

[edit]

We have a hell of a lot of statistics in this article and I question the relevance of most of them. A note, properly referenced, could be made about the ethnicity, place of birth and religion of Barrovians, but I simply don't think we need reams and reams of tables splitting the population up every which way. I know tables can be fiddly to do, so I have left the removed stuff below if we decide to put some stuff back in.Kijog 01:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to delete the following, there seems to be little appetite to return it to the article. Ki | jog 15:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people list

[edit]

Can this really be better represented as prose? I think it is best in a list, but a table is possible. I reckon prose just wouldn't be practical to have this as prose- it would be inaccessable, and would just read as it would be- a list converted to prose. Bulking the writing out further would also stretch the section, as there are rather a lot of people there. Anyone have any thoughts? J Milburn 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on this one. Reckon we could make it into prose and put the sports people as a par in the sports section Ki | jog 12:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devonshire dock hall?

[edit]

Is this the second largest in Europe? The largest in Europe? Anyone have any references? J Milburn 10:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the biggest, that's for sure. I'm pretty sure the Stralsund one is the biggest but it's not the sort of thing that make the Guinness book of records. Prob biggest in Britain - I have access to a cuttings archive so I will see if the Evening Mail has referenced that.Ki | jog 12:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Minorities

[edit]

I'm happy for new information to be added to the section, but I think the information is far too detailed to be notable considering the small number of people it concerns. Also, I think the 2001 census results are a stronger source than the 2004 estimates. Some properly referenced content has been deleted to make way for the new breakdown and I'm minded to delete it unless the list can be cleaned up (as per WP:EMBED) and referenced properly. Any thoughts? Ki | jog 12:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 2001 census results are more accurate for 2001, but Barrow's ethnic population has changed a lot (percentage wise) over the last 4 years, never mind the last 7! I'd agree they're more verifiable, but the difference in numbers, I think, is worth using the new figures —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.250.194 (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More famous people?

[edit]

I have just come across Category:Barrow A.F.C. players and Category:Barrow A.F.C. managers. It may be worth looking through these for other notable individuals who were born in or who resided in Barrow. I am making a note here because I am currently looking for another reference for Frank McPherson being from Barrow, as the current source is unreliable. J Milburn 16:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well, I am removing Frank McPherson until we can get a good reference for him. It's entirely possible that every reference online can be traced back to whoever added the fact to Wikipedia. There's a fairly good chance there is a book in my house somewhere that will mention him, I will keep my eyes open. J Milburn 16:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History subtitles

[edit]

I think the subtitles are actually pretty relevant- without them, the history section becomes, in many ways, an inaccessible block of text. I mean, thinking about it from the point of view of a schoolchild researching local history, there is no way they are going to read all of that. However, I see where you are coming from- splitting it up is a little arbitrary, and some similar featured articles I have checked- Weymouth, Sheffield, Birchington-on-Sea- don't have them, BUT, they have much shorter history sections. Perhaps it would look a little better if we split up the text with other things, like pictures- perhaps just moving the middle picture to the left would do the trick. On another note, this isn't looking bad, at all, in comparison to said featured articles. J Milburn 13:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two possible new sections

[edit]

Reviewing featured articles on similar topics, two new sections that could be very useful would be geology and climate. For instance, take a look at this very nice table, I'll see what I can do about knocking up something similar. J Milburn 14:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, table isn't going to be possible, as there is no weather station anywhere near Barrow, according to the met office website. Oh well. J Milburn 14:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's disappointing, that's why I had to rip out the original climate stuff because it applied to Blackpool airport! Geology is definitely a goer, as we did in the Askam one. Otherwise, we're getting there, done a bit of a copyedit on History. Two things I've just thought we need to include are a bit about parliamentary politics and also that the Walney to Wear cycle route passes through Barrow. Ki | jog 14:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how we need anything much on parliamentary politics... Barrow's quite definately a Labour supporting town - owing to its working class roots. It wouldn't hurt to mention it though 89.243.250.194 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Station

[edit]

Walney Airport has a weather station doesn't it? [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.216.120 (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does :-) can't find a reference though: it's not the sort of thing people tend to write about —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audigex (talk • contribs) 10:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devonshire Dock Hall

[edit]

After research I have found out that Devonshire Dock Hall actually is the largest shipbuilding Hall in Europe, and not the German one in Stralsund, Germany. Even the official BAE website states that DDH is the largest. I have therefore reverted all the information relating to the Stralsund Shipyard. The sources stating that DDH is the largest in Europe are:

Fantastic. I'll format all those refs in, as well as formatting the references on your new section, tomorrow. I have gone and found myself busy today. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by J Milburn (talk • contribs) 11:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Stralsund (length 300m, width 108m and height 78m) is definitely bigger than DDH (length 260m, width 58m and height 51m). Sources are:

Additionally the new shed for CVF will be lower, narrower and shorter than the DDH.

84.71.61.220 (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

[edit]

This is clearly a much loved and well maintained article, however, I'm a little concerned with some of the over-adventurous content. For example, I'm not entirely sure an image of a bridge in China is entirely proper. Simillarly, I think a closer look at the WP:UKCITIES standard on layout etc would help here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Television signal quality

[edit]

I've added the below to the relevant section... I'm posting here because I'm not sure how to verify the fact for inclusion (although I've lived here for 18 years) - but it's true in hundreds of Barrow homes (at the northern Hawcoat/Ormsgill area) "The signal from Millom is generally of inferior quality, with most households recieving BBC 1 and 2 and ITV at adequate quality, with low quality reception of Channel 4 programs." 89.243.250.194 (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Barrowraiderslogo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

I believe it would be better to merge this article with Barrow-in-Furness (borough) (the government district) to lack confusion, a nd make things simpler. An example of such a merge is the Preston article, which has information on the city and district/ borough in one. Please leave your comments below. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The borough of Preston probably doesn't need a separate article as it consists of the city and a few villages. The borough of Barrow-in-Furness contains Dalton-in-Furness, which is also a town. —Snigbrook 22:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tend to agree with this too. Preston is a city with several villages which have become part of the city. The whole borough is run by the same council as it's the same urban conurbation. On the other hand Barrow is merely a part of Furness, with other towns which are significantly different enough to warrant seperate articles. Look at Lancaster/Morecambe and you get a third approach, seperate towns etc. I don't think there's enough reason to combine the two, Barrow is seperate to most towns/villages in the Borough, whereas Preston is attached to most. Audigex (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish miners

[edit]

The reference to the Cornish miners is not correct. The miners were recruited for the Stank and Yarlside mines in the 1870's, which was after the industrial revolution had started in Barrow. See Roose in Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hicbibi (talk • contribs) 19:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Areas of Barrow in Furness.png Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Areas of Barrow in Furness.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Barrow-in-Furness/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 14:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Starting review. More soonest. Tim riley talk 14:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

Before I begin reading the text, I must at once raise the matter of the references, which are frankly inadequate:

  • Dead links:
    • Refs 13, 16, 28, 30, 34, 54, 62, 63, 71, 73, 78, 82, 87, 92, 94, 104, 106, 108, 110, 111, 122, 125, 133, 147, 153, 172, 180, 182 and 184.
  • Bare URLs
    • Refs 168 and 169
  • Lacking page numbers
    • Refs 2, 9, 44 and 143
  • Inadequate bibliographical details
    • Lacking any or all of article title, publication/website, publication or retrieval date: refs 10, 11, 36, 60, 62, 63, 73, 74, 141, 151, 170.
  • Sites viewable only by subscription, e.g. ref 23, should be identified with the {{subscription}} template.
  • Inconsistency in spacing and punctuation of authors' initials: e.g. Bainbridge, TH as opposed to Marshall, J.D.
  • Inconsistency in adding names of publishers of journals/papers.
  • Inconsistency over whether articles are "accessed" or "retrieved"
  • Inconsistent use of DOIs – see, e.g., refs 23 and 42.

I'll put the review on hold for a week to give time for this to be sorted out. If and when that is done I'll read the text and review it against the GA criteria. – Tim riley talk 15:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some excellent improvements, but we are not there yet. I'm failing the nomination this time, but if further improvements are made I'm confident it can be promoted. Tim riley talk 21:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation - IPA

[edit]

I have altered the IPA pronunciation of Barrow in Furness to reflect a more realistic standardised version according to Wikipedia's rules on IPA for English. The previous pronunciation (/ˈbæroʊ ɪn fərˈnɛs/ or locally /ˈbæroʊ ɪn ˈfɜːrns/) gives the impression that FurNESS is the standard pronunciation and local people say FURNS. Both are incorrect. The local pronunciation is always FURness. The area is not well known enough to have gained a 'standard English' pronunciation (like NEWcastle for local NewCAStle), so the local pronunciation is surely the only correct one. Cumbrian author and academic William Rollinson has stated that "Furness is pronounced Furness, not Furness", so it has backing in print. Psammead (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I would point out that the mileage you entered is wrong, the distance from Barrow to Liverpool is more like 95 miles and about the same to Carlisle, you put almost half of those distances, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.139.176 (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard Furness as a surname pronounced like "furnace". However in the Furness article the pronunciation is listed as being "fur-niss" rather than "fur-nəss" so is the name pronounced differently in Barrow to the rest of Furness? As for the pronunciation widely used on the BBC: in the case of Newcastle Upon Tyne the IPA for the RP pronunciation is listed as well as the local accent. Although Furness is not as well known as Newcastle it might make sense to avoid confusion. Tk420 (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly speaking - yes, it is pronounced like "furnace". There's no difference in pronunciation of 'Furness' in Barrow to the rest of Furness, so (without being very familiar with IPA) I'd say that fur-nəss of this article is probably right: it's not pronounced to rhyme with 'hiss' if that's the implication of "fur-niss"? I'd argue that the pronunciation which I like to call 'Barrow Inverness' is simply incorrect rather than an RP variation: as Psammead says above, Furness doesn't seem well known enough to have acquired it's own RP pronunciation! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for any confusion caused by the error in my last message (the Furness article lists the pronunciation as fur-niss not fur-nəss) which I have since corrected. The inverted e, also known as Schwa, (ə) represents the mild central vowel sound e.g. the a sound in Rosa and about and is used in pronunciation respelling, which native English speakers are often more familiar with than IPA, on Wikipedia as well as in IPA. Tk420 (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have another question that might help get the pronunciation right: How is furnace pronounced in the local accent? In standard accents the second vowel in furnace is pronounced like the i in hiss rather than the a in Rosa. Tk420 (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So the pronunciation would be much closer to the a 'Rosa', yes. An example of quite a strong version of Barrow accent would be the TV presenter/chef Dave Myers - interview here. There's also a discussion of Barrow accent here. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current IPA (with schwa) is broadly correct for Furness, as Standardised version of the local pronunciation. Of course, it doesn't represent the local accent, since that's not really what Wikipedia's asking for (no one native to Cumbria will use /æ/ for example). I've added a respell to make life simpler. Psammead (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Barrow-in-Furness. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Barrow-in-Furness. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Barrow-in-Furness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Barrow-in-Furness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 35 external links on Barrow-in-Furness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Barrow-in-Furness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

incapacity benefit reference

[edit]

the article mentions Barrow having concerning figures for incapacity benefit claimants related to mental health problems... this isn't referenced, but either way is long outdated - incapacity benefit no longer exists - so the figure cannot be up to date or currently true..

Hoped somebody can sort this as I lack the capacity to look at it just now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.166.188.206 (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Williams

[edit]

She is notable too, is'nt she? Look at this: BBC on E. Williams. She changed the whole community in Barrow-in-Furness, says Simon Fell cf. "Simon Fell, the MP for Barrow and Furness, said the case had caused huge community tensions in Barrow, with an increase in racist attacks on Asian people and “unofficial surveillance operations” being carried out on Asian businesses." (The Guardian 3th January 2023). --Cabanero (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Came looking for more news on her and found nothing. cheers, Michael C. Price talk 08:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-64950299 cheers, Michael C. Price talk 08:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barrow-in-Furness&oldid=1211969479"