Talk:Southampton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Southampton is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to places in the UK. If you wish to contribute you can visit the project page where there are resources & guidelines, to do lists and discussions.

United Kingdom Portal

This article has been rated "B" on the Wikipedia Version 1.0 quality scale.

On the project page you can find detailed guides on how to write about counties and settlements, as well as where to find statistics, references and other useful things. Additionally, the following have been identified as specific improvements this article needs:

Cite sources! This article could pass WP:GA with references.
History is rather long, consider splitting to History of Southampton using summary style.
"Southampton Today"? Seems to be an odd "misc" section, with unrelated things thrown in.
- Industry can go in the economy section
- A Culture, media & sport section could take a lot from this misc section
Districts:
- lists are frowned on, use prose and describe anything notable about those areas.
- "district" is a well defined term in UK geography and these are not "districts". They are "areas" or "suburbs".

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

1 Multiple "Ports in ..." Categories
2 Notable People
3 Official Shell
4 Photographsage=1
5 Cycling routes link

[edit] Multiple "Ports in ..." Categories

I recently added Southampton to the "Category:Ports and harbours of the United Kingdom" category as well as "Category:Ports and harbours of England". It seems that PiE is a sub-category of PiUK, but the category pages don't list members of their sub-categories in their index. So if you go to the PiUK page the index contains very few places, as ports are categorised into either the UK or their country within the UK; e.g. Liverpool was in UK, but not England. This means that all these categories aren't comprehensive. I would have thought "sub-category" would behave like a sub-set in set theory; as Southampton belongs to PiE and PiE is a sub-category of PiUK, then therefore Southampton belongs to PiUK and should be listed in its index. Otherwise there's no point in a "Category:Ports and harbours of the United Kingdom", as if everything is eventually slotted into its respective country, then this category will be empty except for sub-categories. Perhaps this is the way sub-categories are meant to behave, as more of a heirarchy or tree that one can navigate into.

This extends to categories generally, not just this example. If I say an orange is a fruit and that fruit is food, then it seems to make sense to assume that an orange is food. Am I being too mathematical and anal about this? (forget the anal - it's a positive quality for a wikipedian) --Splidje 10:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved all the articles except Associated British Ports out of Category:Ports of the United Kingdom into their respective divisions of the UK. This isn't ideal. I would rather they all showed up in the ports of the UK category as well, but it doesn't seem that categories and sub-categories behave this way. The port categories were a mess as they were, with some ports under England/Scotland as well as UK, some just under UK, and no separate categories for Wales and Northern Ireland. I decided that moving them all into sub-cats was the only way to impose some order on the whole thing. If they were listed under UK as well as England, say, that would probably be opposed as unnecessary multiple listing and over-categorisation. Mattley ^(Chattley) 13:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree about not listing them in both categories, as it is redundancy. The sub-category system is a good system; I suppose what would good is at least the option to show a category's full listing, including everything in all its sub-categories. Is there somewhere we can suggest this? --Splidje 13:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notable People

I think the list is currently too long. Category:Sotonians gives a full list, so we really only need a fairly short list of (a) very notable historical sotonians (such as Isaac Watts) and (b) notable sotonians of current interest, IMHO. Does anyone have any other views on the length of the list or how it can be trimmed? Waggers 15:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It is long and contains people who I would consider not to be Sotonians (is George Thomas a Sotonian just because he went to uni in Southampton). Out of that list, why don't we drop it to three historical (Watts, Jellicoe and Benny Hill) and three current (Craig David, Chris Packham and Matthew Le Tissier)? DM Andy 08:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. And you're right, there should be a distinction between Sotonians (=residents of, or people "from", Southampton) and the University's alumni. Obviously in some cases, a person could belong to both categories. Waggers 12:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas, the dictator of Argentina from 1829 to 1852, spent the final 25 years of his life in exile as a farmer in Southampton. Would his long residence qualify him as a Sotonian? Bhumiya (said/done) 22:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've given it about a week. Since no one seems to object, I'll add Rosas to the article. Bhumiya (said/done) 18:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. By all means he qualifies as a Sotonian (ie. can be added to Category:People_from_Southampton) but I'm not sure he's any more notable than many of the others that have been omitted, so I'm not convinced he should be listed on the Southampton article itself. Waggers 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but he's a huge figure in Argentine history, probably second only to Juan Perón in political-historical significance. It also seems like he was the most famous Sotonian during his lifetime. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm convinced :) Waggers 14:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

11:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of famous people missing from here, for a good list (including Jane Austen amongst others) try here; http://www.visit-southampton.co.uk/site/student-zone/famous-sotonians

11:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.144.191.248 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, but there simply isn't enough room for everyone. We already have a "good list" at Category:People from Southampton and we don't want to replicate the whole thing here in the article. To address your particular example, Jane Austen only lived in Southampton for a few years although she did of course spend much of her life nearby, in other Hampshire locations. Waggers 11:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official Shell

Is anyone really interested in the "Official Shell" of Southampton? Is there really such a thing, and why does there not appear to be any other town or city article with referance to such an obscure item? I have seen this added, removed, added again, and now I have removed it, as well as a "Notable Person" and shell collector who has added himself to the list, and the referance to the Official Shell

--Dashers 05:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read a lot of local history books on the area and don't remember ever coming across it. A Google search doesn't bring anything up either. As for the shell collector adding themselves to the notable people list, that's verging on vandalism. We've made it very clear, both in a hidden comment on the article itself and here on the talk page, what the intentions are for this list. You did the right thing, and have my full support. Waggers 20:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

>:I've read a lot of local history books on the area and don't remember ever coming across it. Maybe you read the wrong books? --Historyisfun 16:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide a source for the "official shell" stuff, that would help to justify its inclusion in the article. Without a valid, reputable source, it should not be included. Waggers 20:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that the whole "Official Shell" stuff was vandalism by people having a laugh at Wikipedia's expense. I have noticed some other places have official shells, and have deleted them too.

[edit] Photographsage=1

What a fantastic resource the following site is for photographs http://www.geograph.org.uk/search.php?i=462059&page=1

Supposed 04:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's awesome. I discovered it a couple of weeks ago and added some photos to some of the districts and suburbs. I've been meaning to get out with my digi camera for ages and Geograph saved the effort! Waggers 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)