Talk:Southampton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Southampton article.
Article policies
Good article Southampton has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
September 1, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Southampton is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Contents

[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) —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

How about adding R. J. Mitchell, the Spitfire's designer, to the list of notable people? He doesn't even make it on to the "People from Southampton" list.

Another candidate for the "People from Southampton" list might be John Stonehouse, the MP who famously disappeared with his mistress. Stonehouse attended Taunton school in Southampton.

Gavyn Davies, the economist and merchant banker, is another person with Southampton connections (Tauntons again I'm afraid) who could go in the "People from Southampton" list <http://www.davidrowan.com/2001/09/evening-standard-gavyn-davies-profile.html>

[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)

[edit] Cycling routes link

Calineed 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The site below has cycling routes for the Southampton area. http://www.bikely.com/listpaths/country/253/region/5392/city/4935

[edit] Sport

Seems to be a fair bit of opinion in this section, rather than out-and-out fact. Anyone agree? Dan Kerins 21:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. The section is also too long - too much repetition about the history of Southampton F.C.. It already has an article of its own, the ups and downs of a local football club isn't really relevant to the city itself. (By the way, please add discussions to the bottom of talk pages, not the top!) -- Waggers 11:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

First this is a good city article, but i think all the little sub articles about particularly districts should be merged Notability Crusader 07:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No way! Some of the district articles (Highfield for example) are huge. You would lose a lot by merging them in. It's interesting and useful to have the regional articles. Southampton's a big place, and especially for local history and amenities there's no other way of categorising this information. The only thing I would say however is that I would like to see a better classification of what is a district and what isn't, though, it's all a bit flexible at the moment. AlanFord 09:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't support this merger - per Alan Ford above, some of the district articles are quite detailed, and merging them into the Southampton article would either result in that becoming far too large, or the loss of information. The districts are mentioned in the main article, and explained in more depth in their own articles, each linked with the {{Districts of Southampton}} template - personally, I'd leave them as they are. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
And again, absolutely not! The suburbs of other cities have separate articles of their own, as do settlements within rural boroughs etc. There's absolutely no reason to merge the separate districts into this article. If there was, why not also merge Southampton into Hampshire, Hampshire into England, England into United Kingdom, United Kingdom into Europe etc. and end up with one huge confusing article called "Geography of the world"? It's a ridiculous idea. Waggers 13:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Further comment: I note that areas outside of the city council boundary have been included in the proposed merge, including Totton (part of the New Forest) and Chartwell Green (part of Eastleigh) but not areas like West End and Hedge End. Seems pretty clear to me that the proposer is trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Waggers 21:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Do not merge Please note the username of the user proposing this. They are on a personal crusade, and so far all they have contributed to wikipedia under this username is to propose a number of mergers of districts in and around Southampton (and one school which I have been working hard on to maintain). ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 15:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I too worry about the notability of some of the items in Wikipedia. However, IMO, every settlement and suburb (by the British definitions, anyway), is worthy of an encyclopaedia article. And they certainly shouldn't be merged into this article: as a major city, this article is on the priority list for bringing up to featured quality, and merging in other articles isn't going to help that. Joe D (t) 17:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I am against the proposed merge of articles suggested by Notability Crusader it would cause a loss of information in many cases and an overloading of the main Southampton page. Notably a similar set of proposals was made by an anonymous user to disrupt the Portsmouth page and those of its schools information is here and also here. -- Drappel 20:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I oppose the merge on the grounds that all the subject articles are substantial and a merge would either lead to a loss of information or an oversized 'Southampton' article that would need to be split up again. Furthermore, as a local resident in the area, each of the areas proposed clearly has a distinct identity. This proposal is needless disruptive make-work. Webmink 02:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Since the consensus is that the merges to schools/districts in Southampton and Portsmouth suggested by Notability Crusader (contributions) and 82.26.107.104 (contributions) while the proposer was trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, should not take place and in the absence of any other apparent removal action, I shall remove them. -- Drappel 08:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed Drappel. I see you got as far as 'P', I've done the rest :-) AlanFord 10:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] esports

Hi, Im new to editing Wikipedia.. please could someone add to Southampton that we have the HQ of world esport champions 'fnatic' (www.fnatic.com) Based at starbytes on new road (www.starbytes) This company rose to the top their profession last Christmas when they won $100,000s in the Cyber Athletes professional league. The players are famous world wide although the gaming scene hasnt quite caught on in the UK. Somewhat understated.. Starbytes Cyber Cafe currently runs UK leading tournaments. Thank you

[edit] Largest city?

The reference for this statement seems to say that So'ton is the South Coast's largest city by area. I would say that to shorten this to simply 'largest city on the South Coast' without qualification is misleading since most people will assume that to mean largest by population (in fact Plymouth has 20000 more residents). What do other people think? If there are no objections i will change it accordingly. -Koromislo1, 01:21, 6 July 2007

I'd argue that to say 'is the largest city by area' in the intro would make it too wordy. By all means qualify it later on in the article, but I'm against going into too much detail in the intro, but that's just my thoughts. Dan Kerins 14:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thriving Cafe Culture?

I'm not sure whether the cafe culture is any different to anywhere else in the UK, or if there's any evidence that it's thriving. I've just visited Portugal, where anywhere you look there is a cafe. That to me is a thriving cafe culture. Supposed 21:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I propose moving some of the pictures around a bit, rather than just having them all in a straight column down the right. How about putting them in to the relevant sections? Dan Kerins 07:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. It would be great to have the pictures aligned with the relevant sections. It's also worth bearing in mind there are lots of other pictures of Southampton available too, if you want to change some of them to keep the page fresh. Waggers 08:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. :o) Dan K 19:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation?

Can someone tell me if this city's name is pronounced like South-Hampton or is it South-Ampton or just one word as it is? An IPA pronunciation key would be helpful in this article. Thanks. JRWalko 02:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not an expert but I am English so I know that the pronunciation of this word really depends on where you come from. South-Hampton, is how I pronounce it and I'm from Devon. I think if you were trying to speak Standard English that is how it would be pronounced. Whereas, the South-Ampton pronunciation is tends to be used by locals and is just a product of the local accent. They tend to stretch the 'amp' bit, and this becomes South eeeamp ton. Supposed 15:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the "eee" comes from in the above! Locals also shorten the "South" considerably (almost to the extent of not pronouncing much of a vowel at all), and the "th" is very soft, as in "bother" or "leather" as opposed to "both" or "this" - "S'thaampton". I've heard it argued that it's incorrect to pronounce the "h" since that's part of "South" and the name is "Southampton" not "South Hampton". However, anyone familiar with the history of the name will know that the city was called "Hampton" before the South prefix was added to distinguish it from Hampton Court, so really the pronunciation of the H is down to personal preference or regional accent rather than there being any correct or incorrect version. Waggers 08:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've cobbled this together: (IPA: /saʊθˈhæmptɒn/) but I'm not sure I've used the right vowel sound in ton. If someone could please give it a once over before sticking it up. Ta. Dan K 09:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed

I have just reviewed this article per its recent nomination at WP:GAC. Unfortunately, the article does not meet the current standards of good articles as outlined in the criteria so I have had to fail the article. These issues need fixing before it will meet GA standards:

  1. Per WP:LEAD the lead does not adequately summarize the article. Each section in the article needs a summary paragraph in the lead. Several sections lack any treatment in the lead. Think of the lead as a standalone summary of the article; it should be the article in minature. If this were the only problem, I would have considered a 1-week hold to correct it. HOWEVER...
  2. The referencing has serious issues. The article is covered with [ citation needed ] tags. Until that issue is resolved, and given the amount of referencing needed, I thought it prudent to fail this nomination. There may be more referencing needed than just resolving the tags; carefully look at the article and cite any assertion of fact, especially historical facts or claims of superlative or places where analysis or interpretation is given.

Otherwise, the article is pretty good. The prose is GA quality, and the article is easily broad enough to merit GA inclusion once the above issues are fixed. Please make these fixes before renominating again. If you feel this review was inappropriately handled you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R. If you have any questions or need some help cleaning this up further to meet GA standards, drop a note by my talk page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair review to me. I'm going to kick off by putting some hidden labels (html comments) in the introduction, so that each paragraph has a label corresponding to the relevant section of the article. Then we can see what's missing and start ensuring that the paragraphs contain the necessary information. Waggers 08:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't argue with any of that. It's Nice to have a better idea of what we need to do though. I think we can get it up to scratch fairly quickly. Dan K 09:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(arb unindent) I have referenced the statement regarding the evolution of the name from a good source [1]. Regarding the comments on the wool trade from the 13th Century this website is a cite indicating the wool trade was alive and well in the 15th century. I would prefer some discussion before adding and ammending the time scale in the article. Pedro |  Chat  10:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We've done quite a bit of referencing, so anyone agree it might be worthwhile trying again? Or is there still more to be done? Dan K 14:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weather box

Ta to whoever added the proper weather infobox, but is it possible to have Celsius and millimetres listed as the primary figures rather than the imperial ones? Most weather in the UK is measured in metric, so as it is at the moment looks somewhat out of place to me. Dan K 15:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crime

I am not very good at all this editing stuff and i tried to make a topic about the crime in Southampton but i dont think it was specific enough so it got removed .I saw that portsmouth had a crime topic so maybe if somebody else was able to create this for southampton? (some good information at www.upmystreet.com)


[edit] GA Review

This article pretty much meets the GA criteria. I made a few minor changes to the order of sections, based on WP:UKCITIES guidelines. Other than that, the prose is very well written, it seems reliable and well-sourced, the images are all free or fair-use, and contribute greatly to the content. The only real issue that MUST be fixed prior to GA status (hence the reason this is on hold) is the 'citation needed' tag on the sentence in sports: "The City Of Southampton League is the oldest competition having been founded in 1949." I tried to find a reference by searching google, but didn't come up with anything. I'd suggest either finding a good reference or just removing it for the time being (the article could do without the information). When this is fixed, I'd be happy to promote this to GA status.

There are a couple of other issues with the article that I found; most are minor. The lead section is good, but kind of dry, and doesn't really weave together well -- each sentence seems sort of disconnected from the rest, so I think it could be tied together better. WP:LEAD could offer some suggestions on improving this.

In the history section, first, there's a couple of areas where references are in the wrong place -- you should place the reference immediately after the punctuation with no space between, not before (like this.[1] -- not like this[2].). Secondly, the paragraph dealing with the docks sort of awkwardly jumps from rebuilding them in 1838 to the construction of the titanic in 1912. Did anything happen between this time; or maybe it could just be transitioned better? The history section also kind of leaves out a lot of recent history (pretty much anything after the 1950s, or WWII). So more could probably be added here.

The demographics section could use a better introductory sentence; it seems to start with the polish population, and goes right into other ethnic groups and details.

Consider separating the 'culture, sport, & media' section into three separate main sections. As more content is added and this section grows, it's going to be easier to read and organize it with information in separate sections.

The external links section is getting rather long. Consider pruning it a bit. Check WP:EL for guidelines on what links are acceptable and what links are not. Entities within the city, such as the Southampton University Hospital, need not be linked here, since they're already covered in the main article.

Hope this helps improve the article. Good luck! Dr. Cash 17:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the corrections, I'd say the article meets GA criteria as written. The other issues still should be addressed, of course, if you're interested in possibly getting the article up to FA standards. But I'd say this is a Good Article. For FA class, it would help to make sure that the article completely complies with the manual of style, and that it's not missing any major topics (full completeness), and that ALL information that requires a source has one (WP:CITE).
You might want to also review WP:CITIES for more tips on editing city articles as well; specifically, the guidelines for UK cities. There's also a guideline for the structure of US cities, which has been updated a bit more recently, and might still be useful as well. Cheers! Dr. Cash 17:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Really?

"Southampton is probably most famous for being the home of the RMS Titanic, the Spitfire and more recently a number of the largest cruise liners in the world."

  • Not to me. Anyone else find this a strange statement? SeanMack 15:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe the titantic set sail from what is now ocean village and the spitfire was built by RJ Mitchell at Southampton Airport, Eastleigh. As for the cruise liner bit, the largest cruiseliners in the world have been known to dock in southampton. There's even a bus service primary used for people to just look at the liners. Supposed 16:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
From a worldwide perspective I would bet that the sailing of RMS Titanic is probably the one thing above all else. However in the context of the article the probably most is a bit weasley..... I propose we ditch those two words and move to "Southampton is famous for being the home of the RMS Titanic, the Spitfire......". Thoughts anyone? Pedro |  Chat  19:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. The statement seems fairly accurate in my mind. Pedro makes a good point about 'probably most'. Not sure it is weasly, as fame is a fairly subjective thing, but his suggestion seems to tidy it up anyway, so I'm happy to go with that. Dan K 21:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Dan. I've been bold and altered it to "Southampton is noted for....." - I hope that sits well with everyone. Pedro |  Chat  07:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tour of Britain

I've removed this:

The finish of stage one of the tour of britain clyling event, was held in Hoglands Park, Southampton on Monday 10th September 2007.[2]

Simply because I'm not sure it's a big enough event, and might just be recentism rather than noteworthy. Anyone who knows more about this care to say anything, or to add it back in? Dan K 06:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw it go in, but was unconvinced. I think it's too newsy and rather than noteworthy. If the Tour of Britain regularly finished in Southampton then a rewording of the above would be a notable thing to have but as it stands I think it's better out. Pedro |  Chat  07:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming of articles about city suburbs

Can someone explain why the articles about the city suburbs have the suffix Hampshire rather than Southampton? e.g. Shirley, Hampshire rather than Shirley, Southampton (which is now a re-direct). As a Shirley resident, I don't consider that I live in Hampshire but rather in the City of Southampton, and I'm proud of it. On looking at the edit history, most of the articles were re-named in November 2006, with the edit summary "correct form of disambiguation". Where is this policy set out? Daemonic Kangaroo 06:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Can yoi imagine renaming say, Edge Hill, Liverpool to Edge Hill, Lancashire simply because it falls within the boundaries of the old county of Lancashire? 79.67.28.73 07:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I've often wondered about this. I've seen nothing to suggest this was a consensus decision and I'd happily agree to help change them back to Wherever, Southampton if people agree to it. Dan K 10:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
They should all be Wherever, Hampshire if disambiguation is required, as stated in WP:NC:CITY: "Where disambiguation is needed, they should go under [[placename, contemporary county/lieutenancy area]].". The contemporary county/lieutenancy area for Southampton and its suburbs is Hampshire, not Southampton. Waggers (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(removed indent) Southampton is the local authority. Hampshire has nothing to do with anything inside the boundaries of the city. Fpr example, it is Hyde, Greater Manchester, not Hyde, Cheshire as outlined in the guidelines. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Counties of Britain "We should use the current, administrative, county." In this case, it is Southampton, not Hampshire, as there is no administrative county, but rather a unitary authority. Besides, who honestly says Shirley in Hampshire? Common sense has to prevail. Dan K (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Counties of Britain is about counties, not settlements; the naming convention for settlements is WP:NC:CITY. Secondly, Southampton is the administrative body, but Hampshire is still the county for ceremonial purposes and lieutenancy. So your assertion that "Hampshire has nothing to do with anything inside the boundaries of the city" is incorrect. Waggers (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
So can you explain the Hyde example, which seems to be at odds to what you are saying? Greater Manchester is a metropolitan county (a unitary authority in all but name) while Cheshire is the historic county. Eitherway, what you are saying are simply guidelines, and no-one says Millbrook, Hampshire. Surely real world use takes precendence over Wiki guidelines? Dan K (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
A metropolitan county is still a ceremonial county (see Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England); a unitary authority isn't. Millbrook and Shirley were settlements in their own right, within Hampshire, long before the urban sprawl and administration of Southampton reached that far. They were, and still are, in Hampshire. Locals in many areas of Southampton prefer their settlement to be known in its own right rather than as a suburb of Southampton. Besides, what's so bad about being associated with Hampshire as opposed to Southampton? Waggers (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of the "convention" quoted by Waggers, but I think it needs review. It is certainly not applied consistently; just look at Category:Districts of Leeds - under the "convention" all those articles suffixed "Leeds" should be renamed to have the suffix "West Yorkshire". --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make a right. What's at issue here is what the correct naming convention is, not how it's been implemented. You're probably right, there are other instances where articles have been named wrongly (according to the convention), but that is not an excuse for repeating the mistake. Waggers (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Historically, you may be right that Shirley was outside the city boundary. That doesn't apply to St. Mary's for example. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but St Mary's is still within the ceremonial county of Hampshire and therefore St Mary's, Hampshire is the correct name according to the naming convention. Waggers (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
But in modern day usage, how many people refer to Millbrook, Shirley, Mansbridge etc as in being Hampshire above Southampton? Why should archaic usage be given more credence than the here-and-now? There's nothing wrong with being in Hampshire, but when it's just going to confuse matters there is no point, regardless what Wiki conventions say. As Daemonic points out, St Mary's, Chapel etc have never been settlements outside of the city, so why suggest that they are? These places are now all suburbs/districts of Southampton - not Hampshire. Dan K (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing archaic about saying that a settlement in Hampshire is in Hampshire. Shirley, Millbrook and, yes, St Mary's are all in Hampshire. "St Mary's, Chapel etc have never been settlements outside of the city, so why suggest that they are?" Where did anyone suggest anything of the kind? Hampshire does not exclude Southampton, it includes it. If you want to get the naming convention changed, I suggest you make your points on that talk page rather than here, as it's important that we apply the same conventions across the whole project. Southampton is not a special case. Waggers (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well for a start, a convention is not set in stone - it is simply advisory. At the moment, consensus is against you with regards this article (and related ones) and thus it should be left as it is. In my mind common sense dictates that Wherever, Southampton makes far more sense than Wherever, Hampshire, with regards districts of the city. If you can demonstrate why using Hampshire above Southampton makes more sense, or that common, real world usage is indeed Hampshire rather than Southampton, I am sure we'll go with it. At the moment, I just don't see any reason to change it. As an aside, IMO, I think this comes down to a misreading of the convention. These areas have been consumed by Southampton - if it was somewhere like Romsey, Bishop's Waltham etc then it makes sense. I haven't see anywhere that suggests this convention applies to districts/suburbs of a settlement, but rather settlements in their own right. But that's just my opinion. Dan K (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the suburbs of Southampton are settlements in their own right. The fact that they have grown and joined up with neighbouring settlements does not change that, and nor does the unitary status of the city council. Waggers (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Waggers, why have you changed them without consensus on here? As I've pointed out, just because the convention says something, it does not mean it has to be followed. Dan K (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
There was never consensus on here to change them to ", Southampton" in the first place. The convention itself was established by consensus; changing from ", Hampshire" to ", Southampton" breaches that consensus. It's important that the same principles are applied across the project, so if you want the convention to be changed, please discuss the matter on that talk page, not this one. Waggers (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The usual disambiguation form is "settlement, ceremonial county". If there are more than one settlement with the same name within the same ceremonial county, then (and only then) it is usual to have the form "settlement, local authority". The case of Hyde above is a red herring - Greater Manchester is a ceremonial county, the equivalent of Hampshire in this case. Cheshire is Hyde's traditional (or pre-1974) county. Southampton is an Administrative County in its own right (technically, the County of Southampton - the same as the formal name of Hampshire, but that's another story), but Administrative Counties are irrelevant in this case.

Think of it this way - using the Ceremonial County prevents arguments over whether somewhere is simply a suburb of a larger town, or a settlement in its own right simply administered by the local authority named after the larger town. Fingerpuppet (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with this standpoint. I'm very much against renaming "suburbs" (-by which there is no formal definition) of Southampton to "PLACENAME, SOUTHAMPTON". The rationale I'm seeing is very weak. Certainly, if Southampton gets it, what about other cities? Do all places in the City of Salford get disambiguated to Salford, despite there being individual towns in Salford? What about the City of Carlisle? Only a tiny core of the city's boundaries is the urban-"city"-core, so do all the hundreds of outlying villages of Cumbria get disambiguated to Carlisle? Then what next, boroughs? I sense this is something to do with identifying with Royal Mail's post town system, which is very unencyclopedic. I see no rationale for a Southampton exception. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with postal towns - if it was I'd also be advocating this for places such as Romsey (assuming disamb. was needed) - which I'm not. The parts of Southampton mentioned are known as being part of Southampton above being part of Hampshire - regardless of what a Wikipedia convention may say. This convention skips a whole level of geography. The Salford example doesn't work here, because there are no towns in the city of Southampton (as would be the case for somewhere like Stoke On Trent). I would love for someone to show me why real world use should be overwritten for the sake of a Wikipedia 'convention' which there is plenty for scope for ignoring in the Wikiepdia rules. Shirley, Weston et al are known as parts of Southampton rather than Hampshire. The logical thing is to surely go to the next 'level' up for disambiguation, such as street> district> town> county> region> nation? I understand what Fingerpuppet is saying and it makes perfect sense - but there is no issue with the districts in Southampton, so why change it? Places such as Hythe, Totton, Romsey example should be xxx, Hampshire (I'm not certain if they were off the top of my head) but by naming places inside the city as if they are individual parts of the county just confuses matters - especially when the first line of the articles clearly say they are in Southampton - not Hampshire. Dan K (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
But they are also in Hampshire. Southampton is in Hampshire. Cities are always in counties (apart from Bristol and City of London which are also counties). You ask for a real world example of disambigation to ceremonial county - well, I just reached for the first atlas I have and the AA's Road Atlas of GB and I disambiguates its index in this way; Hythe, Totton, Romsey all in Hants.
Regardless, I regret to say that it appears that there is little support for a change here, and certainly a policy already exists. I do see your logic, but the problem is that it has negative implications for the rest of England. Certainly though until a change of policy occurs, Southampton shouldn't be treated any differently. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly right. Also, I disagree with Dan's assertion that "there are no towns within Southampton." The focal point for most of Southampton east of the river Itchen is very much Bitterne, not the city centre, and if it wasn't for the growth of the city itself, settlements like Bitterne Manor, Bitterne Park, Townhill Park, Sholing and Harefield would all probably be suburbs of Bitterne. In fact, you could almost classify them that way now. The point of having a convention is to avoid these vague arguments coming up. There's nothing un-"real world" about saying that Bitterne is in Hampshire. Waggers (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hang on, if London wasn't built Winchester might be the capital of England. That's hypothetical, so what's your point regarding Bitterne? Bitterne has never been a town. It was a village until the 19th century, but no-one around now considers it a separate entity from Southampton. I haven't said that these places aren't in Hampshire, simply that the vasy majority of people would refer to them being part of Southampton before they would Hampshire. And to Jza84 - I said Hythe, Totton and Romsey are all in Hampshire and not Southampton, so what's your point there? I was asking for contemporary, real world examples of places like Shirley, Millbrook and Bassett being referred to as Hampshire before Southampton. I just don't see the logic in ignoring a level of geography, especially when it is the one that most people will use to describe where somewhere is. Neither am I saying Southampton is a special case - it just seems an odd point to choose for disambiguation. Dan K (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've said enough times in this discussion now, if you're not happy with the naming convention then discuss the matter on the talk page there. You haven't done so, so why are you still complaining about it here? "no-one around now considers it a separate entity from Southampton" - really? Have you ever met anyone from the Bitterne Local History Society? Waggers (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And how many of them say they live in Bitterne, Hampshire (mind you, it's irrelevant as Bitterne does not need disambiguation)? I'm talking about it here because I'm talking about Southampton. I'll be honest that I see no point in discussing it anywhere else because if you are not willing to at least acknowledge the fact that the convention could be flawed (Jza84 aside), I don't see the point in taking it any further. Going by this discussion I have a feeling it would be like getting turkeys to vote for Christmas, but if it makes you happier, I'll put something on there. The only rationale that is being offered in this instance is 'because the convention says'. An inflexible, one-size-fits-all rule it's going to annoy someone - especially when you factor in the inconsistent manner in which this rule is applied. Leeds was mentioned earlier, and I don't see a rush to alter that article (or others) as there was here - that's what is making this grate even more. Dan K (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ferry Port

I tried to take what was in that to include it in with the style of the rest of the article. I may have chopped too much out, so I'd appreciate it someone had a look. I was thinking though, would it perhaps be worth an article in it's own right? What was here may not have been in the correct style, but there was a lot of info there. Dan K (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there's scope for an article not just on the ferry port but on Southampton Docks (at present a redirect) as a whole, covering their history etc. of which the ferry port could be a major section. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with that approach, although it's worth noting that the larger ports (Felixstowe and Tilbury) don't have separate articles on the ports themselves. Waggers (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
There is also an embryonic Port of Southampton article, in need of serious work. (note Tilbury is covered by Port of London as well as the Tilbury article).Pterre (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Home of the Titanic?

In the introduction to the article, Southampton is noted as being the "home of the RMS Titanic". However, is the word 'home' not slightly vague? Southampton could be the city of construction, outfitting, registration, first passenger intake, etc. And besides this point, is it not generally regarded that Belfast is colloquially considered to be the Titanic's home? Yanington (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

I've noticed there has been a massive edit of the history section. I appreciate there is a seperate article for this (unbeknown to me previously) but this new History (Overview) section just seems far too stunted and a lot of the references it contained have not been replicated in the History of Southampton page.

I suggest reinstaing the information that has been chopped out of the Southampton article until the History of Southampton article is brought up to speed with references etc. Dan K (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than re-instate the History section, which would take us backwards rather than forwards, it would be better for everybody to deploy their efforts on the separate History of Southampton page. There's a great deal more that can be added to that page. If we were to put it all in the main Southampton page it would be far too long.Hethurs (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the problem is that in the meantime we are left (IMO) with two sub-standard articles. At least by reinstating the information until the History of Southampton is up to speed, we don't lose any information. My personal belief is that the history of Southampton deserves a longer section on the main article anyway, with some aspects (such as the Titanic) given a lot more detail than the recent edits have left, but as I say, that's just my opinion. Mind you, it was with the section as it was that the page achieved GA status. Dan K (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday we had the problem of two pages containing more or less exactly the same information, so where on earth do we put any new additions to the history of Southampton ? Some people will choose the main page. Others will choose the separate history page. Result, we get the history of Southampton scattered across two separate articles with considerable scope for contradiction and confusion and the situation getting worse the longer it is allowed to continue. By making the history section in the main article much more clearly an overview, cutting it down to what is essentially a list of the key points with all the detail documented on the separate page, we can overcome that problem.Hethurs (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And now we have the problem that important parts of Southampton's history don't warrant more than ten words on the main article, such as the Titanic and anything that has happened in the last 60 years. We also now have a history article with just four references and the original article is missing about a dozen references. Please don't take this as an attack on you, but I feel your edits have been too severe for the Southampton article when the History of Southampton is not really good enough to take it's place just yet. The overview just reads like a list of facts points rather than a piece of prose in an encyclopaedic entry.

AFAIK, the content is the same as it looks like it was just lifted from the main article, before it was referenced as part of the drive to make the it GA-class. Either way, we'll wait and see what the other editors think before we do anything, one way or another. Dan K (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think the best way forward is to work on the separate History of Southampton page, addressing your valid point about the lack of citations - I can't see why they weren't included when the page was originally cut & pasted by somebody. Anyway, that should be fairly easy to put right and we can move forward from there.Hethurs (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the citations on the Southampton page and replicated them on the separate History page. The trouble is, those citations mainly refer to websites and web pages have a habit of moving. I've just tried to look at the first one, Prehistoric Southampton, sure enough the page no longer exists. It seems the Southampton page was sub-standard before I started ! We obviously need to replace all the citations that link to web sites with better citations to printed items that we've got a sporting chance of finding again in future, e.g. via the British Library. I'll continue developing these pages, gradually, when I've got time and will sort out the citations in the process of doing so. Hope you'll come round to agreeing that its an improvement, in the longer term.Hethurs (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well like I've said my main problem is the lack of information and the stunted nature of the overview section. It's no longer written as prose, but rather as a list of unconnected events. The Southampton page most certainly was not substandard - it's been rated as GA-class! One or two erroneous citations do not a bad article make. If I ever have enough time to properly go through it all I will, but I fail to see how taking something, and making worse until you have time to do it properly is making it better! Dan K (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just been looking at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. It seems to encourage summary style which in turn encourages long sections to be split into a separate page via the Main template. Somebody has been here before, sensibly created the separate History page, but not done anything about the duplication leaving the problem which now trips up contributors. As I read it, Good Article allows exactly the sort of overview that we've now got on the Southampton page. The prose can be written in the separate History page, no issue there. What we've got currently isn't a step backwards from a Good Article. It might however prove to be the first step forwards to a Featured Article. Would be good if some other Wikipedians would add their thoughts on this. I'm suprised they haven't already done so.Hethurs (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The history section is longer than it was, but it seems to me that it has less information in it now. I think it looks like a bit of a mess, I'm sorry to say. The recent changes might be well intentioned but I don't think they are helping the wiki entry for Southampton. 207.138.98.253 (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What we had as the History of Southampton 7 days ago was not adequate either. In fact, I was a little surprised to see it had acquired Good article status: there were some major omissions and (as I've said before) it was difficult to know which page to add new material to. Inertia doesn't help the project move forward. If anybody thinks they can improve the History overview, get writing.Hethurs (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Hang on Hethurs, you started saying that it was too long, but now you are making it longer, with lots of detail? Some of the depth you're going into is completely misplaced for an overview section, and to be perfectly honest is the sort of thing that should be on the History of Southampton article you are so keen to champion. For example, you've got more information in the overview on the bridges over the Itchen than there is about the Titanic - which is a far more notable historical event in world terms when it comes to Southampton. You are so determined to go ahead with YOUR changes, I honestly don't think it worthwhile to start editing the section as I can't help but feel that you would simply plough on with how you want the article to be rather than working together - especially seeing as you seem to think you're opinion is better than that of the GA reviewers that this article went through a number of times to be awarded GA status. Perhaps if you outlined exactly what you want from the overview section, then others would be more inclined to help. I know I would. Dan K (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)