Contents 1 Repetition 2 Spam? 3 Case for mentioning Brighton, Newquay, Southwold and Blackpool. 4 Atlantic City 5 Irish towns 6 Worldwide tag

[edit] Repetition

Nearly the whole of this article is about Brighton. Yet there's an article called Brighton! However, if the Brighton stuff is removed or transferred, there will be nothing left. Can someone cleverer than me correct this? - Adrian Pingstone 21:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cancel the above. I've realised its only half Brighton so I'll do the job myself - Adrian Pingstone 21:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spam?

excuse me, passing by - ukcoast guide? Spam, methinks 86.29.23.186 (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is rather, so i removed it. It had a "selling" tone to it. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Case for mentioning Brighton, Newquay, Southwold and Blackpool.

Hi,

My intention was to develop the point of the current state of British seaside resorts, through several examples, only one of which (Brighton) had been written so far. I think that resorts which have broken the cliched mould, such as Brighton, Newquay and Southwold, all of which have sought to project a notion of unique character, have relevance here and should indeed be mentioned, along with Blackpool, which championed the traditional resort concept so successfully and for so long. Note that the Brighton page does not seek discuss the relative merits of the city as a 'resort'.

What do you think?

• I suggest summarising these different approaches in an expanded article. Specific case studies are best placed in the individual city articles. Warofdreams 13:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • Will do, thanks for the advice. Vinoir 16:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atlantic City

Should the American section be developed further, naming some resort towns? Atlantic City, New Jersey on the Atlantic Ocean comes to mind. It would seem to fit the description

A seaside resort is a resort located on the coast.
--User:Brenont (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This list could also include: Santa Cruz, CA, Ocean City, MD, Virginia Beach, VA, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.171.32 (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Without even reading this, I already added Ocean City, MD, and Atlantic City. Virginia Beach is another good one. Does The Hamptons count?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree because, the history of seaside towns in the british isles is completely different to that in the US. You could add perhaps Galveston TX or whatever but they were not designed or intended as holiday resports. I suppose mayve some of the west coast resorts would count. Obviously it would be nice to have worldwide POV but they are just not the same thing, I think better to keep the article focussed on british isles and somehow link to another article about beach resorts or something? SimonTrew (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If the history of seaside resorts of the British Isles is different than in other countries, then that's cause only to explain the differences in its section, not reject other areas out of a British Isle-oriented bias that this article suffers from and has led to the article being tagged as it is. Seaside resorts exist worldwide - the first pic in the article is an example of that - and the content should reflect this. And "beach resort," although one might think it's not the same thing, is the same enough to be redirected to this article, which means anything more strictly defined as a beach resort deserves to be included.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 23:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

yes I would certainly agree that if it is primarily focussed on British seaside towns (using British loosely) then it would be better the article were called that. I am just not sure how to square their rather unique characteristics from other places. It seems very hard to judge, cos the British did tend to get around a bit but not always arriving in ports as tourists (e.g. as invaders or colonisers). I don't know what would be the best here really, but I think an article split here is somehow required. It is tricky, I mean if you had british seaside towns, irish, american canadian, etc etc etc what do you put under seaside town except "it is a town by the side of the sea"? But somehow it does not sit well with me that beach resorts and seaside towns are in the same article. But I can't fathom a good way round it. Your comments greatly appreciated. SimonTrew (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to get confused here by the terminology you're using. You use the term "seaside town", which to me simply means a town by the sea, when the article is about seaside resorts, meaning a recreational destination by the sea - not just any town. And in this context (and in all others, as far as I know), tourists does not at all imply "invaders or colonisers." That really baffles me. I'm also really baffled by how British seaside resorts are so different from anywhere else's. I mean, people travel to a popular place by the sea to relax. It's a simple definition. I don't see how much that can change from place to place.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 13:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Irish towns

Whoever has been working on these sections must be working for the Irish Tourism Department or something, considering how promotional the writing was (I cut down on it); but another concern is a lot of the Irish towns mentioned link to articles on overall counties, which - to me - casts doubt on whether these towns are really notable enough for mention as noted resort towns when the leads of the county articles say nothing about it at all. Perhaps these inclusions are also biased? I'm no expert, but maybe someone else is and can shed light on this?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide tag

I think this tag is unjustified. This is patently an article chiefly about British (English?) seaside towns-- american ones are quite different in character. And I know Ireland is in there too but came from when Ireland was part of the UK (and yes I know British, Irish, British Isles, UK, etc etc etc but let's not right now get into all that). It is a good article, i could suggest some improvements, but I don't think it is wrong for it to be an article focused on Britain. I think the tag unwarranted. It is a nice article by the way, I might move some words around but generally interesting well written well illustrated. SimonTrew (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)