Talk:Lynmouth

Comment on Lynmouth flood

It was awful about the natural disaster that happened, and when I visited some what over 50 years on I'm glad to see that the natural disaster had not been totally forgotten because of the museum at Lynmouth that gave information on it for the tourists to learn about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.101.119 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Lynmouth suggested changes

I would like to suggest the addition of an external link (as I have also done for Lynton) to http://www.visitlynton.co.uk/ Visit Lynton & Lynmouth

(As also outlined to Bob), this link is not spam: The site is not directly profiting anyone although is of course there to help the whole town. In part it IS a commercial link, but it is within the wikipedia rules in that it is not at all obscure and is very very relevent. More importantly it also contains very relevent further reading information in the visitlynton.co.uk/about section, which is being added to.

Other suggested changes:

The following external links are all dead and out of date -

Seaflow Project Lynmouth-Seacore Article and poem on the Lynton Lifeboat Video about 1952 flood

Nikb01 (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Forget it. We do not link to that type of site as per WP:External links, whether they are for profit or not. As for the dead links it looks, without seeing them, as though they may not have met the standards either. They can be deleted.--Charles (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed material

I've removed the following statement for which there seems to be not support in any of the sources.

"There does not presently seem to be any direct evidence to support such allegations, but conspiracy theories have been fuelled by rumours of missing or destroyed government documents relating to the experiments".

I mistakenly labelled this vandalism in my edit summary which was uncivil. I apologize for any offense.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing map.

There is no map showing Lynmouth within Devon - is one available anywhere? --Julius R.S (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no infobox either. If you look at Lynton it will show you how to do one, with map.

I think we could use a large scale map though, maybe just North Devon. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Julius R.S: Infobox added. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lynmouth. 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/20080707072823/http://www.trinityhouse.co.uk/interactive/gallery/lynmouth_foreland.html to http://www.trinityhouse.co.uk/interactive/gallery/lynmouth_foreland.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) 07:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was No consensus'. NHSavage (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)'

---

Lynton and Lynmouth are each important in their own right, but there is a lot of overlap between the kind of information that could and should go in their Wikipedia articles:

• The two settlements are geographically adjoined, and information about the location of one applies to the other.
• The two settlements' histories are linked.
• The two settlements share a common civic administration.

How do editors feel about the idea of consolidating these articles, please? The Parson's Cat (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The articles should probably remain separate but maybe some of the information should be moved into Lynton. Just because the places share many characteristics and similar doesn't mean that they shouldn't both have separate articles. The Lynmouth article is quite well developed despite it being the smaller place. Also a Lynton and Lynmouth article (the civil parish) is needed. I think WP:MERGEREASON 3 of the to be avoided likely applies here. Unlike Shotley/Shotley Gate (see User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 56#Shotley Gate) I think many readers will know of them being 2 different places. I'm not strongly against a merge but I'm interested to see what others think. If this was a paper encyclopedia this might be best but we aren't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I oppose a merger. Looking at a map one might think that Lynton and Lynmouth are a single community, but they are actually separated by a high cliff, and the only direct link between them is the Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway. If travelling by road or path a long diversion is needed to get from one to the other. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose They are separate parishes with separate names. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• I agree - they are distinct enough that I feel they should have their own articles (even if they are now in a single Civil Parish).NHSavage (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

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.