Talk:New Brighton Tower

What about the Beatles in Hamburg? Their Hamburg dates must be more than the 27 dates at the New Brighton Tower(?)

They played every single night for months in the Indra Club (for four hours every night!) in Hamburg during mid-August into October of 1960, then moved to the Kaiserkeller for almost all of the months of October and November (where they apparently played five or six 90-minute sets every day!) In both venues, they played seven days a week. They also returned from England for some more gigs there later. Surely their gigs in either Hamburg venue amounted to more than the twenty-seven at New Brighton Tower? I estimate more than 30 dates at the Indra and more than 50 at the Kaiserkeller. The only reason I'm not editing the New Brighton Tower article with this correction immediately is that, however correct it seems I must be, there are thousands and thousands of Beatlephiles who are sure to pounce on inaccuracies as soon as they see them, and this article is being featured first under Did You Know on the main page. If none of the serious Beatlephiles have corrected it already, then it seems like I probably have something wrong somewhere. Would someone with real expertise on the Beatles chime in here, please? You have my gratitude.  :-) 69.17.65.107 (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC) P.S., I added hard-coded new line breaks, since word wrap seems to be misbehaving.

Thanks, I've updated the article and hook to specify the UK, since although the source didn't qualify it as "UK venues", I think you're right, and I was the guy who looked at the article. Acroterion (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I just used what the source said but I have no problems with the change; I did think it might have been a bit unlikely but I didn't find anything to conflict it. Thanks very much for making it more accurate ツStacey (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be worth finding a source to substantiate the approximate number of appearances the Beatles made in Hamburg - I'm sure somebody's put a number to it, which could be used to appropriately qualify the New Brighton Tower assertion. Acroterion (talk)22:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've asked User:GabeMc for advice on this issue ツStacey (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

According to The Beatles at The Cavern Club there were 292 appearances there. Some of those sources might mention the New Brighton venue. Acroterion (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

WP's List of the Beatles' live performances links Tower Ballroom to the Blackpool Tower, which I suspect is in error. That Tower Ballroom was more posh and is out of character compared with the other venues the Beatles played at the time, and I suspect the person that linked it was unaware of the New Brighton venue or tower. Again, reference to the sources should clear that up. Acroterion (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Capitals

The Tower Buildings, Tower Ballroom, Tower Theatre, Tower Gardens, Tower Grounds, etc., should be written with capital letters - refs here, here, here, here, some of which could also provide additional information. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've left a couple of lower case "tower buildings" where these were more of a description than a title. Bazonka (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There is also more information here, for instance mentioning reasons why it was dismantled - I've no reason to doubt its accuracy, but whether it meets reliability standards for a GA might be another matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that can be used as WP:RS, but the historyofwallasey reference, already cited, gives a reason for the dismantling. Bazonka (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: Looking at the capitalisation issue more closely, there are clearly some inconsistencies in the sources as to whether "Tower Grounds" or "Tower grounds", etc., were used. The tower was certainly called the Tower, and the theatre and gardens were certainly called the Tower Theatre and Gardens respectively (and were known by those names after the metal structure itself was dismantled), but I'm less certain about the "grounds". WP:OR I know, but trying to make sense of the sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this. I guess we can use "grounds" as a descriptive term. Whether these grounds were called "Grounds" as well isn't necessarily relevant. Bazonka (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm leaving you and EC to it, to avoid edit (etc.) conflicts. I have offline sources but so far can't find much additional info in them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping User:Staceydolxx is going to help out too, as she wrote the bulk of the article. Bazonka (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Editors here might be interested in this video. According to the video (at about 8:00), the steelwork was not taken down because it was unsafe, but because the owners wanted to reclaim the steel for use in shipbuilding. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I had seen a few blog pieces speculating that it was taken down for political reasons and for the steel though there doesn't seem to be many reliable sources to back that up. I would presume that video wouldn't count as reliable? ツStacey (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The person interviewed is Joy Hockey, who is president of the Wallasey Historical Society. I'm sure she's a reliable source, but whether she's a Reliable Source is a different matter, and unfortunately she doesn't seem to have published anything. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

She would qualify as a reliable source as far as I'm concerned, and the video is "publishing". I never found the present story about why the tower was dismantled to be very convincing anyway. The structure wouldn't have deteriorated that badly in only four years I don't think. Eric Corbett 13:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm struggling to access the video, but if there's anything worth adding, please do. Worm^TT(talk) 13:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Tower Theatre

This source refers to the Tower Theatre, opening on 30 May 1898. "There was seating accommodation for 2,000 persons, standing room for 500, and prices of admission ranged from sixpence in the amphitheatre to a guinea for boxes." It seems (from this) that the Theatre and Ballroom were separate, but both within the Tower Buildings - "On approaching the Tower Buildings, the main entrance will be seen leading to the Bazaar, Grand Tower Theatre, and the main staircase to the Ballroom, &c.". There seem to be quite a few pages on that History of Wallasey site that have not yet been thoroughly mined for information. The article, at present, does not seem to mention the Theatre at all. Incidentally, regarding the "Ashanti Village", there is some discussion here that sheds some light on it.Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with that assessment. As things stand, I have some reservations about whether this article meets the GA completeness criterion (3a). Eric Corbett 21:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There was a bit about the theatre, but it looks like there's been a little confusion between the dancing platform and the theatre due to an article about a brass-band competition, which implied the theatre was open air. Looking at it again, it looks like the competition would be held in the theatre if it rained, or on the dancing platform if it didn't. Anyway, I've reorganised the article and written a specific bit about the theatre. I hope that sorts that. Worm^TT(talk) 13:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen this source? Pages 5-6 seem to have information about the building's architecture, design, etc., not in the current article. There's also more detail on the various fires in this book - self-published, but reliable, I would think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Just the preview of palaces, not the whole thing. I'll have a look through it now. As for the fires, I've taken out a few bits about less consequential fires and am generally not keen on using self published sources. I'll have a look though. Worm^TT(talk) 13:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Construction materials?

Steel or iron? The lead says steel, the accident description says an iron girder. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a very interesting question. The article in the Mercury does indeed say "Iron girder", though I've seen a number of sources which point out that it's a steel construction instead of the iron constructions of the past (Blackpool & Eiffel). I'll take out the word iron, which I will assume was a mistake as the article was focussing on the accident and the type of metal may well have been overlooked. Worm^TT(talk) 14:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This blog, for what it's worth, says steel. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

C-Class Rating

I've re-rated this article as C-Class, as the article has been requested for assessment by Stacey, in accordance with the Wikiproject Merseyside Quality Scale. The article is quite substantial, has a significant amount of references, and is longer than the one shown for Bluecoat School. I feel that this should be considered as at least minimum rating, for the article, as of now. The article may be suitable for B-Class, by a further assessor. EP111 (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:EP111, the article passed a good article assessment, so meets the criteria for GA. If you believe it should be downgraded, best you follow the instructions at WP:GAR Worm^TT(talk) 13:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, that's not a problem. I'm grateful that someone, who is paying the article more attention than I am, has finally given the article its suitable status within the Merseyside ratings system, after a rather long wait. Thanks. EP111 (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

References

@Andy Dingley: Just wanted to discuss the adding of a reference in the bibliography; firstly, I want to apologise - the editor had used the reference for a new sentence so I was wrong about that. However looking again, it has been added as a full reference twice (in references and bibliography). The agreement previously was that if the reference was used more than once it was listed in the bibliography with a SFN. Thanks, ツStacey (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Even if it's not used, it belongs here. Move it to a "Further reading" section if you insist, but a published book solely on the topic of the article belongs somewhere in the article, even if no-one has yet had time to work it into the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Brighton Tower. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507005717/http://www.tonyfranks-buckley.com/Books.html to http://www.tonyfranks-buckley.com/Books.html

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) 23:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Brighton Tower. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109131131/https://picasaweb.google.com/wright1818/MerseybeatAndBeatlesMemorabilia to https://picasaweb.google.com/wright1818/MerseybeatAndBeatlesMemorabilia

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) 11:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Old location map

@Roger 8 Roger: I observed you undid my edit but have since restored it, so I assume you checked this fairly quickly and found to be correct. It's worth pointing out the area has changed a fair bit in 100 years! I included a wider portion of the map, such as nearby streets, so that modern day comparison would be easier. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

In haste, I mistakenly thought your edit was on another article about another place, o'er the seas and far, far away. The image looks good though and is an excellent addition to its article. I will try to be more careful in future. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

As a Merseyside'er myself, it was never an error I was going to make ;) I do agree that it adds value though, which is especially true of structures no longer in existence. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)