Talk:Bath, Somerset

Bath in the seventeenth century – it is not mentioned yet, that Daniel Defoe in his novel Moll Flanders has written about Bath. Consequently Bath was "full of life" already in the 17-th century. Kalevi Kvell, Estonia -- User:77.233.90.11

Somerset?

I lived in Bath most of my life and have never really thought of it as "Bath, Somerset". Until 1997 it was in the county Avon, and since then it has been in the unitary authority Bath and North East Somerset. I wasn't aware that Bath was now considered in the ceremonial county Somerset as ceremonial counties don't present themselves in anyway. Since there isn't another city called Bath in the United Kingdom, why do we need to be so specific? --Oldak Quill 17:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at the archive of this talk page you will see a massive discussion + votes etc on this issue.— Rod ^talk 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that the name is wrong (that is, "Bath, Somerset" is not a name used to refer to Bath, and Bath is not in Somerset). It hardly matters how much discussion or voting has occurred: voting can't be used to decide the truth of something. The discussion to which you pointed seemed to mainly concern whether bath or Bath should sit at Bath. I'm not suggesting this city should be moved to Bath, but there are at least half a dozen better qualifications than ", Somerset". --Oldak Quill 12:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. In the discussion to which you pointed, User:MichaelMaggs said "As the name suggests, this authority covers only part of the old county of Somerset. But in practical terms a resident would never say "I live in Bath, Bath and North East Somerset", but might say "I live in Bath, Somerset". More likely, however, he or she would simply say "I live in Bath", as that's all that most people would need. So "Bath, Somerset" is at worst redundant, but is not wrong.".

I have never heard anyone use the term "Bath, Somerset" when referring to Bath (Google, with only 250,000 hits for "Bath, Somerset", mostly hotels trying to increase the romantic appeal of the city, seems to confirm this). Normally, when Bath is said to be somewhere the term "BANES" (or "B&NES") is used, more rarely "Avon", and never "Somerset". Somerset doesn't exist and Bath can't be said to be in it. I'm pointing out these comments because they might have been used to decide the move, but are wrong. Just as another point of discussion: the term "City of Bath" is quite commonly used as a name for the city (the term is used by the UNESCO website site, the university website, the semi-official website for the city...) --Oldak Quill 12:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would just use "Bath (UK city)" or something similar (along the lines of Georgia (U.S. state) or how Encarta does it[1]). But for some reason, people seem to not like using standard Wikipedia disambiguation guidelines when disambiguating place names. --Polaron | Talk 13:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I live in Bath, and have never heard of a local refer to "Bath, Somerset", and AFAICT no one in Bath has a sense of belonging to Somerset. I pointed this out in the renaming discussion, but that view did not prevail - and it still grates every time I see the article name! A pertinent fact is that Bath has been a County borough since 1889, so not part of administrative county of Somerset since then, and hasn't been the county-town even though it is the highest population city in the ceremonial county. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Counties of Britain isn't at all clear on the naming of places within a larger unitary authority, as opposed to town/city which composes the whole of a unitary authority: 'We should use the current, administrative, county ... We should mention historic (traditional) counties in articles about places ... but only as an afternote. If a place is a unitary authority and not administered by a county council, it is acceptable to use ceremonial counties as geographic references, as this is often more in line with common usage"'. As Somerset is not the common usage in Bath, strikes me that existing Wikipedia policy suggests that it should not be "Bath, Somerset". The neighbouring unitary authority of South Gloucestershire is treated differently in Wikipedia, as if it was a proper county with naming like Thornbury, South Gloucestershire - trouble is Bath and North East Somerset is such a mouthful. In fact the naming of the UA Bath and North East Somerset rather than the simpler North East Somerset is clear indication that Bath is not generally thought of as part of Somerset in administrative/government circles as well as by the local populus. I could also point to Halifax, West Yorkshire and St Helens, Merseyside which are former county boroughs that have not been named in Wikipedia by their old ceremonial counties, probably because the locals don't think of themselves as part of that county. Rwendland (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was born and bred in Bath (moving on in 1974 or so) and it was definitely in Somerset, then! 'Avon' came later, and was much disliked. Sounds like a cosmetics advertisement :-). I'm a Somerset man, and proud of it. Mendip; Cheddar; Cider; Glastonbury Tor; Bath -- all the essence of Somerset. quota (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Quill is glossing over a lengthy and complex discussion by simply asserting that "Somerset doesn't exist". Of course it does - it is both an Historic county and a Ceremonial county: see the article Somerset. I think what he meant was "The local authority district for Bath is not coterminous with the County of Somerset". Indeed, that is so, and that fact was well-acknowledged in the discussion, prior to the vote. The local Authority is an entity known as "Bath and North East Somerset" (B&NES), whose geographic area covers part of that of the County of Somerset. During the vote there was little stomach for changing the title to "Bath, B&NES" (meaningless to most readers) or to "Bath, Bath and North East Somerset" (a mouthful, and unlikely to be used by any but a vanishingly small proportion of Wikipedia readers). "Bath, Somerset", was chosen as the best of the suggestions at the time perhaps because several locals, myself included, very frequently refer to Bath in that way. "Bath (city)" would have been possible, but several voters didn't like that as it would not be a unique disambiguation - several other towns around the world are called Bath, and in the US the word "city" can be used even for quite small towns. Personally, I would go with the suggestion made by Polaron, above - "Bath (UK city)". That's short, accurate, and would be well-understood by the vast majority of readers. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Somerset not existing was one of my arguments (to clarify: Somerset as a functional county or authority does not exist). A more important argument is that Bath is not in, has not been in for a long time, and is not thought to be in a place called "Somerset". As User:Rwendland points out, Bath has been a county borough since 1889 and has not been administered by Somerset since then. This is why, despite having lived there for well over a decade, I have never heard it being referred to as in Somerset and have not encountered any sense of it being part of Somerset (historical, ceremonial, or otherwise). I agree that both "Bath, B&NES" and "Bath, Bath and North East Somerset" wouldn't be good titles. "Bath (UK city)" would be fine, though the disambiguation term is a little clunky. How about "Bath, United Kingdom" (this is my favourite)? "Bath, United Kingdom" makes the naming consistant with other geographic articles and is disambiguated enough. --Oldak Quill 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

citations

i think a lot of things need to be verified. the population for instance. And it says there a many five star hotels, i think there are only 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.217.55 (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that many of the statements in the article need citations. I have provided over 50 so far and added {{fact}} tags where I think more are still needed. I have moved the list of "places of interest" to a new article List of places of interest in Bath, Somerset and combined some of the sections. I have also removed several comments which do not comply with WP:NPOV, although I've spotted some remaining in the architecture section. I am hoping that with some further work this article can regain some of its former glory!— Rod ^talk 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

? What else before going for GA

I have added lots of references & copy edited this article. Thanks to others for edits as well. I think a little more is needed in the history section for the 2nd half of the 20th century and current developments, but apart from that what else do people think is needed before this article is ready to be put up for Wikipedia:Good articles?— Rod ^talk 15:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the lead needs a serious seeing to. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The lead has now had a "seeing to" is there anything else people think need doing - or is this article ready for submission to Wikipedia:Good articles?— Rod ^talk 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Order of Infoboxes

An editor keeps switching the infoboxes so that "Infobox World Heritage Site" appears above "infobox UK place" I do not feel this is appropriate but wanted to try to reach some consensus here. Any thoughts?— Rod ^talk 20:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

UK infobox first. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

World h site first, the same reason as on the Maritime Greenwich Article. Blackwave...... (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason quoted in the Greenwich article is that the infobox is boring and doesn't have an image. If that is your only reason then it is very easy to put an image into the UK place infobox - I have done this. My opinion is that Bath is a living, working city first and a world heritage tourist site second. For that reason I believe the UK place infobox takes precedence. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that the purpose of the infobox is to give a standardised summary of the main points about its subject, the question becomes which of the two infoboxes best summarises the article. There's no doubt that's the UK place infobox, and that therefore it should come first. I'd also say that having the two infoboxes immediately following one another looks a bit naff as well. The Greenwich article at least has some separation between them, even though they are in the wrong order. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You make a really good point about separation. There should be a separate section within the article on UNESCO world heritage status that should also contain the UNESCO infobox. I'll give it some thought. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I too agree UK place should be first. Purely based on how I interpret the article to pertain first and foremost to Bath as a place/settlement. I also believe it would lead to less confusion to unfamilliar users navigating to this page. 16:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jza84 (talk • contribs)

I think that putting the infobox in a separate world heritage section would be a really elegant solution to the problem. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)