Talk:Bath, Somerset/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

17th century

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)

As a long-time Bath resident I would strongly contest the statement that Bath doesn't identify with Somerset. As Bath is the only Bath in the UK and a well known city, there is often no need to give a county, as there is no need for disambiguation or to locate the city in the country. This is even more so now that one only needs to give the street address, postal town and postcode for postage. Just as one wouldn't generally need to say "Canterbury, Kent" or "Exeter, Devon" or indeed "Paris, France" you don't generally need to say "Bath, Somerset" but this doesn't prove Bath isn't in Somerset any more that it proves Paris isn't in France.

It makes no sense to say that Somerset doesn't exist as a "functional county", whatever that means. Somerset County Council certainly exists, headquartered at Taunton. See www.somerset.gov.uk. Somerset exists in terms of having a distinct culture and tradition. Some things stereotypically distinctive about Somerset are the dialect or accent (one would speak of a "Somerset accent", never a "BANES accent"), cider ("a Somerset cider" never a "BANES cider"), the tradition of holding carnivals in the late summer or autumn eg at Taunton, Wells and many other towns (this is rather unusual in the UK), playing the game of skittles in alleys attached to pubs etc. Such things don't change at the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen when administrative divisions are chopped and changed every few years. Avon existed for little more than 20 years before passing unlamented and Bath and North East Somerset has existed for just over 10 years. Somerset has existed for centuries. In a slightly different level but a similar fashion regions can certainly exist without even having any administrative existance, eg East Anglia exists without being an administrative unit of England, Appalachia exists without being a state in the USA, Hispaniola exists despite being split between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. In addition one would speak of geographical features being in Somerset, such as "Hinkley Point nuclear power station is located on the coast of Somerset", "the Mendips are a range of hills in Somerset" or "The River Axe flows through Somerset". Then of course there are the Somerset Levels, whose name is inextricably linked to Somerset. The local BBC radio station is named Radio Somerset. Somerset is the name of the county cricket team. Even at the most trivial level Somerset is in evidence, such as Facebook groups devoted to discussions on which is the best or worst town in Somerset, what the distinctive things or dialect features of Somerset are etc. Go to Taunton or Glastonbury etc and tell people "Somerset doesn't exist" and they'll think you're crazy.

Bath is by no means in the core of Somerset, which lies further to the south and west but that doesn't mean it is not part of it. Bath is situated in the far north east of the county, close to the borders with Wiltshire to the east and Gloucestershire to the north. Bristol is much closer to Bath than Taunton. In addition Bath has had a different history from the rest of Somerset, as a spa town that attracted fashionable vistors from across the UK especially from London in the 18th Century in a way other settlements never did.

Of course Google is far from a perfect tool, but it does give an indication of useage. "Bath, Somerset" returns 363 000 Google hits, no fewer than 20 times more than the next most widely used form "Bath, Bath and North East Somerset" with 18 000. "Bath, BANES" returns 6 280 and "Bath, B&NES" 703.

Lastly, Bath is not the largest settlement in Somerset. Bath has a population of about 80 000, while Taunton by the two definitions used on its page has population of 88 000 or 102 000. The former refers to the former borough and the latter the larger urban area.

Booshank (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2008 (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)

Yes the two infoboxes together are causing huge problems in my browser. Might it not be suitable in history or culture? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree moving the world heritage infobox further down the article would be beneficial - as the UNESCO Document about Bath is mostly about the architecture, how would people feel about putting it in that section replacing the photo of the Royal Crescent which has now been copied to the infobox?— Rod ^talk 11:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't have a strong veiw on where it goes (other than at least below the 1st section). I'm presuming however that some users may want it as high as possible for increased exposure. I guess we're not sure unless they speak up though! -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review: On Hold

I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold until the following issues are addressed. As you address each issue, either strike through the statement/place a check mark next to the issue and state how you addressed it. If you disagree with one of the issues, state your rationale after the issue.

1. The lead needs to be expanded further to better summarize the article. It should touch on each of the sections in the article and be at least three or four paragraphs due to the article's length. For guidelines, see WP:LEAD
2. "The archaeological evidence shows that the site of the Roman Baths' main spring was treated as a shrine by the Celts," Remove "the" at the beginning of the sentence.
3. "Messages to her scratched onto metal, known as curse tablets have been recovered from the Sacred Spring by archaeologists.[7]." Remove the period after the inline citation.
4. "...and possibly on the instructions of Emperor Claudius[8]," The inline citation should go directly after the punctuation; go through the rest of the article and fix any other occurrences if applicable.
5. "Regeneration efforts, since 2000, include the Bath Spa, Southgate and the Bath Western Riverside project.[36]" Single and two-sentence paragraphs shouldn't stand alone. Either expand on it or incorporate it into another paragraph. Fix any other occurrences throughout the article if applicable.
6. Image:Coat of Arms - City of Bath.jpg — If this image is going to be used, it needs a detailed fair use rationale on the image's page that includes the article's title as well. Look to other GAs for examples of fair use rationales.
7. "The city has the hottest geothermal springs in the UK. [46]" Make sure the inline citation goes directly after the punctuation. Again, make sure any other occurrences are fixed.
8. "...the 2004 movie of Thackeray's Vanity Fair, The Duchess (2008), The Elusive Pimpernel (1950) and The Titfield Thunderbolt[65]" The films should be italicized and this sentence is missing a period.
9. Include an intro sentence in the "food" section to have a better transition rather then immediately listing one of the types of food the city has to offer. Something like "Bath is home to a variety of foods that..." Also, is there any notable drinks? Wines or other alcohol?
10. "Bath chap, the cheek and jawbones of the pig, salted and smoked is named after Bath, its place of origin, and still available from a stall in the market.[74]." This sentence should be rewritten or split into two sentences. Expand on it if you can, and which stall in the market is being referred to?
11. "Important economic sectors in Bath include Education & Health (30,000 jobs), Retail, Tourism and Leisure (14,000 jobs) and Business & Professional Services (10,000 jobs)." The different economic sectors don't need to be capitalized. The same goes for the employment sectors a few sentences after this one.
12. "There are many roman archeology sites through out the central area of the city,..." Roman should be capitalized. There is another occurrence in the same paragraph.
13. "...the inspiration behind which was the Colosseum in Rome.[95] Like the Coliseum,..." Two different spellings are used here for the Roman amphitheater, choose one so they are uniform.

Needs inline citations:

1. "The average annual sunshine totals around 1600 hours."
2. "However, Jane Austen never liked the city, and wrote to her sister Cassandra, "It will be two years tomorrow since we left Bath for Clifton, with what happy feelings of escape."" This quote needs an inline citation.
3. "Jane Austen wrote of Sydney Gardens that "It would be pleasant to be near the Sydney Gardens. We could go into the Labyrinth every day.""
4. "Local legend has it that he bequeathed the recipe for his low calorie biscuits to his coachman, a Mr Atkins, along with £100 and a hundred sacks of flour."

The article was interesting to read and it was great to see so many free images (good job with the several featured images!). Most of these issues should be very easy to fix and shouldn't take too long. I have left the article on hold for seven days for the issues to be addressed. If they are fixed in this time, I will pass the article. If not, the article will be failed and can be renominated at WP:GAN. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning notable drinks, it might be worth mentioning Bath Ales and Abbey Ales. Geometry guy 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Bath Ales added - but not really in Bath

But Abbey Ales is (see here). I'm not sure how notable it is for a town of this size to have two small breweries associated with it, but my feeling is that it is notable enough for a sentence. Geometry guy 20:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Now added

Note: Moved to Abbey Ales (brewery) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbey Ales —Travis^talk 04:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The way the various foods are named in the Food section doesn't seem to be consistent: is it Sally Lunn Bun or Sally Lun's bun? Different formatting is used as well: Bath Olivers are in italics, but Bath buns aren't (should that be Bath Bun?). --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to standardise this based on the capitalisation etc at Bath Delicacies at Bath Tourism site

Thanks to everyone for their edits and advice today - hopefully we have met the concerns expressed by the GA review, but if there are any other issues which need to be dealt with the improve the article please let us know.— Rod ^talk 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just being picky now, but why is 'comfits' in single quotes? Or indeed in quotes at all? ( Maybe I should take up FA reviewing instead of asking for too much at GA :-) ) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Done - but this article was once an FA.......— Rod ^talk 20:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So I'm trying to believe, but I've found it very difficult. BTW. why is 'nib' in single quotes? What is a nib anyway? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets get through this hurdle first. According to Sugar "Coarse-grained sugars, such as sanding sugar (also called "pearl sugar", "decorating sugar", nibbed sugar or sugar nibs) adds "sparkle" and flavor for decorating to baked goods, candies, cookies/biscuits and other desserts." & I have no idea why 'nib' is in single quotes— Rod ^talk 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of early FAs (this one was April 2005) would not meet even the GA criteria right now. The inline citation requirement have been ramped up considerably since the early days (and I'm not convinced this is an entirely helpful development). As for this article, I think it is now very close to (the current) FA standard, and many congratulations to the editors for writing such a fine article about this fine place. Geometry guy 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

GA passed

Good job to all those on addressing the above issues (and finding a few more!) so quickly. I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. There are still a few single sentences standing alone in the "Media" section that should be expanded or merged. Anyway, continue to improve the article, making sure that all new information is properly sourced. As stated above, the article is not too far away from FA status, so I'd recommend getting a couple of outside editors to give it a copyedit and head off to WP:FAC.

Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Each new reviewer that helps to review articles will help to reduce the time that articles wait to be reviewed. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you continue to bring articles up to Good Article status. If anyone disagrees with this review, an alternate opinion can be sought at Good article reassessment. If you have any further questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What else for FA?

Now that this article has achieved GA, what else do people think needs doing to meet the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria?— Rod ^talk 18:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• The two tables in Demography have different text sizes, and there are maybe just a few too many red links for some FA reviewers. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• "... only 15.8% of the inhabitants say they have had a long-term illness, as against 18.2% nationally." Using the word only can imply some kind of a judgement as to whether the difference is statistically significant or not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the font size in the demography table & reworded the long term illness section. I've made a start on the red links - but any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 09:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Since Bath is known for the restorative powers of its waters, it is interesting to note ..." Interesting to who? That kind of language tends to get criticised at FAC, as you know. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I wonder if the schools table in Education and Twinned towns in Tourism are worth the space. Also the Tourism section is oddly tiny. Should the Climate table use nearby Lyneham rather than Yeovilton? Rwendland (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I'd suggest that Twinned towns section could be expanded to say what activities take place under the twinning - and it's perhaps not appropriately under "tourism", as most twin town activities are usually education / culture/ business? PamD (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

According to AA route finder Lyneham is 24.7 miles away & Yeovilton is 39.5 & on a quick scan of the data Yeovilton from Met Office & Lyneham from Met Office its not going to make much difference.— Rod ^talk 11:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

True, not as big difference as I first thought. Straight line using Google Earth I make it 18 (Lyneham) and 28 miles (Yeovilton). Not worth making work over given neither is really close. Rwendland (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone got any further thoughts on putting this up for FA, or shall I go for it?— Rod ^talk 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• As the Demography tables are for B&NES not Bath, and their layout looks plain ugly in the short section, I think they should be deleted. A copy is already in the B&NES article, which is the correct place for this data. Rwendland (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How in the hell did this get FA?

There are still significant issues with this article. I have no idea how it passed WP:FAC. It should never have. It will go to WP:FAR if these issues are not addressed:

• Demographics section is too short! Only two paragraphs! The two tables crowd the whole section and it looks pathetic!
• Industry section is WAYYY too short! Is that seriously all you can say about the town's industry?
• What does 'twinned towns' have to do with tourism? Usually sister cities and twin towns are in its own main section, not as a subsection. The 'partnership agreement' has no source.
• The table in the education section is unproportional to the actual content. There are external links within the table as well (external links should only go in the 'external links' at the end of the article, not within the content area itself). There are two red links in the table as well. I don't understand what the purpose of the 'results' column in the table is for? The links there are to a bunch of BBC articles, but they're not properly formatted as inline citations, and need to be fixed.
• The 'Many notable people went to school in Bath' sentence is completely uncited, and needs to be verifiable, or deleted.
• The media section is also way too short. It looks like mention of several radio & television status are probably missing, though I am uncertain there. Either way, it doesn't look comprehensive.

I can't imagine how this article got promoted to FA in its current state. Is Raul asleep or something?!?! Dr. Cash (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - it passed WP:FAC by going through the appropriate procedures and gaining consensus. I'm sure if you had raised these issues at the time we would have attempted to address them. To respond to a few of your comments:

• I didn't know there was a specific length required for demographics sections - what further information (which is available and verifiable) would you like to see included? - surely whether someone likes tables as a way of representing data is a matter of opinion - rather than "pathetic".
• By far the largest industry is tourism although several other industries (with figures for how many they employ) are included - what further information (which is available and verifiable) would you like to see included?
• Twin towns may be important in encouraging tourism. WP:UKCITIES doesn't mention twin towns, but this could be moved to governance (as these agreements are made by councils) but it is probaly not important enough for its own section.
• The table in the education section does summarise significant information. The results column points to GCSE & "Value added" scores - I will convert these to references as soon as I can. A couple of red links is not a criteria for failing FAC.
• I agree about the "notable people went to school" & will address this asap.
• How long do you think a media section should be? The page is already 70kb long if we add too much more we will get criticised for it being too long.

I'm sure valid and actionable comments (and help with fixing errors) would be welcomed but a more constructive tone would be appreciated.— Rod ^talk 20:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It appears to me that your objections are based largely on your assumption that certain sections are not comprehensive, rather than any knowledge or evidence that they are not – "too short" is a subjective judgement that does not inform about comprehensiveness – along with a dash of wp:idontlikeit. As to Raul's state of somnambulism, that's a question better directed at him. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Years & centuries, numbers & linking

I've noticed that overnight several editors have been changing the way centuries are described and linked & thought it might be useful to get consensus here. The WP:MOS#Dates says "Use numerals for centuries (the 17th century), except at the start of a sentence". I know this conflicts with the next paragraph which says "single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are given as words" but I think the guidance on dates takes precedence? I can't currently find anything definitive in the MOS on whether centuries should be linked (although I'm sure I've read it somewhere before), but it must be consistent within the article. Any help or thoughts appreciated.— Rod ^talk 10:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The guidance is quite clear in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Autoformatting_and_linking - Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. --TimTay (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a script that will delink centuries. If anyone is interested in using it, simply

• 1. copy all the source text from User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js to your own monobook (i.e. replace 'Lightmouse' with your name)
• 2. clear your cache, (if you have Firefox: press Ctrl-Shift-R, if you have IE: press Ctrl-F5).
• 3. Pick an article with units that need converting and click 'Edit this page' to put it into edit mode.
• 4. Click the tab at the top right that says 'dates+units'.
• 5. try it on about 10 articles and let me know how you get on

Any questions just ask me. Lightmouse (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo gallery - remove?

Even though I added a photo to the gallery, I don't really think the section is worthwhile. All the photos are mediocare/low quality, except perhaps Pulteney bridge which already has a better photo in the main text. Even if they were all high quality, it just amounts to eye candy in such a large article. Anyone object to removing the Bath Gallery section? Rwendland (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree. Wikipedia policy is not to have galleries in regular articles unless there are compelling reasons to do so and agreement is reached through the talk page. I am arguing this, for example, in the case of Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier where the photos support a specific event (the pier fire). However, in the case of this article I don't think that the gallery adds any value and the commons gallery for Bath has a much more extensive selection of pictures that is well organised. --TimTay (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I would sa it could go if there is an appropriate commonscat.— Rod ^talk 18:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Rod - actually it's better than a simple commonscat because this article is already linked to a commons gallery which organises the Bath-related photographs. Click the commons link in the article (or above in my prior comment). --TimTay (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK nice - I know I've added more photos of Bath to commons - I will have to work out how to add them to a gallery.— Rod ^talk 18:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging the Claverton Down article into the main Bath article as it doesn't have much content & seems to be fully covered by the article about the city.— Rod ^talk 17:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Claverton Down is a large and distinct area of Bath, so I'd suggest leaving the article seperate, even though it does not say alot. Rwendland (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks for expanding it - removing my proposal.— Rod ^talk 20:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Including external link to Images of Bath website

I have twice tried to add an external link to www.bathintime.co.uk a website I run in conjunction with Bath Central Library and Bath Preservation Trust. The website enables access to over 10,000 free to access historical images of Bath, and any revenue generated from sales of reproductions go towards conservation of their collections. This site is free to access and is not spam. Please could you seriously reconsider your decisions to remove it? The site was created to increase awareness, understanding and appreciation of Bath and its environs, and on that basis, a link from Wikipedia would be mutually complimentary. Sustaining such a service is not easy, and your support would be appreciated. I do not wish to antagonise the Wikipedia community and have been advised to make my renewed request via this forum. As a Bath resident dedicated to the museums community, your help would be appreciated. Thank you.

Fortaguada (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to see what others have to say too. The main concern that I had on first glance was that the site provides only fairly small thumbnails of the images, and the only way to see the images in any meaningful way is to purchase them. As such, the site doesn't really offer access to over 10,000 free images IMO. The issue as I see it is not whether Wikipedia can support your site, noble intentioned as it may be, but whether the site is appropriate for Wikipedia given its policies. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a directory of the World Wide Web. So a better question might be: what does the proposed link add to the reader's understanding of the article, and of Bath? It sounds as though it is a worthy site, but it also sounds as though it is essentially a fund-raising site. I'm fairly sure that's outside the Wikipedia guidelines (please check). quota (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Each individual image includes the location reference and catalogue entry of the original object in the corresponding Bath Museum. If that does not attempt to add to the reader's understanding of the article and of Bath I don't know what does. This enables users to see the original objects in a meaningful way without purchasing them. Difficult not to sound perplexed here I'm afraid. Fortaguada (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, as I mentioned above (and you didn't respond to it), the site only provides thumbnail versions of the images online. As such, the ability to see them in any detailed, meaningful way is to purchase them. As such, I would argue the images are of limited use in that form. The fact that the images reference the Bath Museum is fairly irrelevant in my opinion, as our viewers are likely to come from all over the world and won't have access to it. What use is a reference to the physical object at the Bath Museum to them? As already mentioned, your project does sound like a good fund-raising effect for a good cause, but unless the site offers truly free information (not mere thumbnail sized images), I don't think it is appropriate for the site to piggyback Wikipedia. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about not replying, I'm not familiar with the labyrinthine interface of Wikipedia. I'm not sure which Bath Museum you are referring to as none in my city go under that name, but the fact that providing access to over 10,000 virtual objects is IYHO not providing information, I don't know what is. The site is an attempt to increase awareness, understanding and appreciation of Bath. Each image contains additional information and enables many people visiting Bath from all over the world to plan their trips to the many local museums and attractions. Please reconsider. Fortaguada (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite potential good intentions Bath in Time is a commercial site and falls fouls of - Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services. Nuttah (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I only mentioned "Bath Museum" because you did first. You said: "Each individual image includes the location reference and catalogue entry of the original object in the corresponding Bath Museum". I see now that you probably meant different museums in Bath, but the fact that you capitalised the M in Museum made me think that was its title. I think you're still not quite getting my point. You're not actually providing access to 10,000 full sized images. You're only providing the thumbnail, and viewers have to purchase the full sized image if they want to see it. You say if that isn't providing information, then you don't know what is. Well my response would be "If you provided the full sized, high res images online for users to view for their personal use, then I would consider that free information". Of course that likely isn't compatible with your site's commercial structure, but that is precisely why I don't think your site is compatible with Wikipedia either. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is compatible. I see on the website that it is privately owned, I can't find anything about being run in conjunction or where the proceeds go, although as it has sponsorship I'm not suggesting it is a profit-making commercial venture. dougweller (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Whois on the domain says it is owned by "The Everything Curious Company" based at 1 Royal Crescent. That "company" is not in the UK Companies House register, but the address is of a Bath Preservation Trust museum. If you put "The Everything Curious Company" into google, it appears to be a publisher from the links offered! So the situation remains somewhat confusing, but maybe a commercial arm of the Bath Preservation Trust? Though the Trust's latest accounts don't mention this company. Curious - maybe worth a phone call to the Trust? Rwendland (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Follow through the "about us" link and you get to a very definite, legalistic, copyright statement which basically states all images are copyright and may not be used for any purpose (unless purchased, of course]. The only images allowed in Wikipedia and Creative Commons are those which have a free licence which allows modification and re-use for any purpose (with attribution if the author wishes), or for very specific purposes to use copyright images under fair-use rules e.g. logos. The copyright statement made in Images of Bath website makes it clear that none of these images are open and free. Nor does anything on the website support the original assertion that "revenue generated from sales of reproductions go towards conservation of their collections" - the main justification given for leaving the link in place. --TimTay (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm late coming to this discussion & didn't notice the URL above so I put "Images of Bath" into Google & came up with the Bath in Time site under discussion & Images of Bath which is clearly a commercial site - so I thought I would compare them. Having looked at content, restrictions & copyright notices etc I would say that the purpose of both sites is to sell the images and that their primary purposes for inclusion in wikipedia ext links would be to increase sales, rather than enhance readers understanding of the topic of the articles, and therefore I would not support either being included.— Rod ^talk 19:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Bath Preservation Trust have a press release about a partnership with the Bath in Time[2] which has Bath in Time stating "These are freely accessible, and high quality copies of all the images are available to order with part of all sales going towards the wider work of the Trust". There does seem to be a disconnect between this and the legalistic copyright notice, and I agree best not extlinked until this is clarified. Rwendland (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is established that the site is directly associated with the Bath Preservation Trust (and I don't have any reason to believe it isn't), I still don't feel the site itself justifies a link on the article. Selfish as it may sound, Wikipedia isn't here to prop up charitable organisations. It exists primarily for the free distribution of information and media. I'm sure there are lots of lovely historic images on the site, but as I said, the fact that we cannot really see them in any detail means that the information isn't free on the site. For this reason, I don't see the value of it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for taking the trouble to look into this. Your Internet research has thrown up lots of interesting legacy information. Just to set the record straight, The Everything Curious Company is a name I set up several years ago when I rented a flat in the roof of No 1 Royal Crescent. I have amended the Whois information with the correct address. I self-published a research booklet under that name in 2006. It has no connection whatsoever with The Bath Preservation Trust. However the BPT has chosen Bath in Time to increase the accessibility to their image collection, especially as a significant amount of it is in 35mm slide form and inaccessible. The Press Release on the BPT website should clearly state the aims of this relationship. There seems to be a debate about what is an acceptable resolution to offer free online. This entire venture is funded by myself with the additional support of two sponsors, and the storage requirements to host over 10,000 images to a resolution higher than the one used would make the whole venture unsustainable. The good people of Wikipedia have set a sensible set of rules which I respect. The problem I have is that the interpretation of these has been made in a literal sense and have missed the point of the site. It is to promote the collections of the Bath Museums to a global audience, to provide educational information about these images and as it does not have unlimited resources, to sustain itself through the moderate sales of reproductions that people choose to order. The feedback from users around the world is universally positive, the vast majority (99.9%%) enjoy the free access. The 0.1% who chose to order a reproduction are all delighted with the end result. The amount of revenue we are talking about that in generated by the site, versus the positive benefits it brings the visitors should make this debate irrelevant. I would really appreciate your continued support and thank you for keeping the link active. Fortaguada (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is not a case of interpretation. The more you add the more it is apparent that you want the link to promote a concern you are involved in. Policy, given at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is very clear - 'Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.' Nuttah (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to set the record straight as the conspiracy theorists were getting carried away. Extraordinary. How many of the adminstrators of this site are from Bath I wonder? Fortaguada (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There were no conspiracy theories. We were just doing our research. Does it matter if we're from Bath or not? We're not even administrators (well I'm not, at least), just contributors who value Wikipedia being free of outside commercial interests. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Diliff that the rules/guidelines of wikipedia have been arrived at after hundreds of hours of discussion amongst thousands of editors (although they can still be changed if consensus is achieved) and we were seeing how they appied in this specific example. Although it's not relevant I do live in BANES (although not in Bath) & I'm not an admin either.— Rod ^talk 08:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I live in Bath. I've often thought I should join the Bath Preservation Trust, but have never got around to it - perhaps I should. I've nosed around Bath in Time, but I have to say not being able to get a decent sized image on your screen makes it frustrating to use for idle curiosity (aka entertainment/enjoyment) purposes. Rwendland (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Miles to London

I changed this from 99 to 97 as I measured it from the co-ordinates given for Bath, to Charing Cross, a point in London used for such measurement purposes (Distance between 51.508417N 0.12535W and 51.3809N 2.3603W is 96.7501 statute miles assuming the earth is a perfect sphere with a radius of 3963.1 statute miles) Pontificalibus (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Population

The population of Bath is given as about 80,000, citing a very vague reference in Bath Local Plan. However, taking the Census 2001 population of Bath and North East Somerset of 169,040 and excluding the Census 2001 population of the parished areas of 68,454, the population of the city (that is, the former County Borough) should be 100,586. Can anyone find a direct reference for the Census 2001 figure, or can we take the extrapolated figure (some would argue that it was original research, though I personally thinks that's pushing the argument a bit). Skinsmoke (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[3] says 83992 which is probably where most council literature gets "almost half of the BANES population live in the City" from. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Have rechecked the figures and 83,992 looks correct. Have therefore corrected the figure in the article and updated the reference. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearer, simpler prose

Usually, conversions are a help to readers. However, there are occasions where they become excessive. One passage in the article reads as follows:

The water which bubbles up from the ground, as geothermal springs, previously fell as rain on the Mendip Hills. It percolates down through limestone aquifers to a depth of between 2700 and 4300 metres (c. 9000-14,000 ft) where geothermal energy raises the water temperature to between 64 and 96 °C (c. 147-205°F). Under pressure, the heated water rises to the surface along fissures and faults in the limestone. This process is similar to an artificial one known as Enhanced Geothermal System which also makes use of the high pressures and temperatures below the Earth's crust. Hot water at a temperature of 46 °C (115 °F) rises here at the rate of 1,170,000 litres (257,364 imp gal) every day, from a geological fault (the Pennyquick fault).

I think it reads much better like this:

The water that bubbles up from the ground, as geothermal springs, previously fell as rain on the Mendip Hills. It percolates down through limestone aquifers to a depth of between 2700 and 4300 metres where geothermal energy raises the water temperature to between 64 and 96 °C. Under pressure, the heated water rises to the surface along fissures and faults in the limestone. Hot water at a temperature of 46 °C rises here at the rate of 1,170,000 litres per day from the Pennyquick geological fault.

See how much better the passage flows without the chopping and changing between metric and Imperial measures and other changes? The only conversion that may be helpful is the last one, where some might prefer to include 115 °F along with 46 °C. What do others think? Michael Glass (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Units of measure should always be converted, especially temperature and height/distance since our colonial cousins, who make up a large part of English language Wikipedia's audience, don't understand modern concepts like metres (let alone spell it the right way). Since {{convert}} was first introduced it has undergone a major positive change which allows ranges of numbers to be used, so instead of saying "{{convert|64|C|F|abbr=on}} to {{convert|96|C|F|abbr=on}}" to give a result of "64 °C (147 °F) to 96 °C (205 °F)", you can instead use this "{{convert|64|to|96|C|F|abbr=on}}" which would give "64 to 96 °C (147 to 205 °F)". The latter is simpler. --Simple Bob (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which colonies you have in mind. The only countries that have not converted to the metric system are the United States, Liberia and Myanmar. There is an increasing problem in having articles such as this one with Imperial measures first, as information is increasingly available in metric units. Therefore giving the rainfall as 31 to 35 inches when the meteorological bureau gives rainfall in millimetres introduces figures with rounding errors as if they were the primary measures. At the very least, some flexibility is needed, and probably the best thing is to put metrics first. As long as the other measures are included, no-one is seriously inconvenienced, even though some passages groan under the weight of continual conversions. Michael Glass (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with metric units being used in the article, but only if the whole article is converted to be consistent. Conversions though are a fact of life on Wikipedia and therefore all units should be converted. It would be good to see what other editors think before making any wholesale change. --Simple Bob (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively (& inconclusively) in many places over many years (see for example Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 93. The current Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Which units to use and how to present them says

• With topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. For example, in US articles, they usually are United States customary units, and for the UK, they usually are metric units for most measurements, but imperial units for some measurements such as road distances and draught beer (see, for example, Metrication in the United Kingdom and the Times Online style guide under "Metric").
• If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses.

So my understanding is that UK articles such as this one can use imperial first for things which are normally imperial in UK usage but metric first is OK if that is what the source gives. It also requires that it should (as far as possible) be consistent within the article. Having done this conversion throughout several; lareg article I can warn that it is long & difficult!— Rod ^talk 18:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem at the moment is that the data in the article depends on a mixture of sources. Some are metric; others are Imperial, and some are undocumented. If we are consistently metric or consistently Imperial we will misrepresent some of our sources. If we are faithful to our sources, the article will be somewhat inconsistent. This might sound bad, but the inconsistency will be of a pattern, with technical information and the meteorology being metric first but with distances being expressed in miles and the parks and gardens being described in acres first, because that's what the local council has on their website at the moment. That's not perfect, of course, but it's preferable to misrepresenting the data, and with the conversions, no-one would be seriously disadvantaged. So in my opinion, it's better to be faithful to the sources than consistent with convention. Michael Glass (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction: A private website used acres only; the local council uses hectares. Michael Glass (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Measures: two possible solutions.

On examining the article and its sources (or lack of them) the clash between consistency to sources and within-article consistency is not as bad as some might fear. As far as I can see, there are only two sourced figures that are in imperial measures (both areas of parks), and with one of them, the local council gives the measure in hectares first. Apart from that, measures given in miles appear to be without sources. This leaves two possibilities to consider:

• Make all measures conform with their sources but leave measures without sources alone. This would make the article inconsistent, but measures in miles would be preserved.

• Make all measures conform with their sources and bring the measures without sources in line with them. This would leave just one measure where the the local council - inconsistently - gives the measure in acres. I think we could agree to bring that measure in line with the rest of the article, in anticipation that the local council will amend its own website. Then the article would be completely consistent, but distances would be given in kilometres before they are given in miles.

I believe that either solution would be better than the present arrangement. At the moment, there are several instances where the information is inconsistent with the sources quoted. Secondly the climate section is inconsistent itself because the tabular information is metric first but the text is Imperial first for rainfall. Of the two proposals above, I would prefer the second one, because it is consistent with almost all the sources and is internally consistent. However, others may prefer the first proposal, which conforms with local custom. Michael Glass (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have now changed the sourced measures as outlined above, except I put the area of the parks in hectares first. Michael Glass (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman baths

Hello. I'm not a native speaker of English and I'm working to translate this article for the Spanish Wikipedia. I had some difficulty in understanding the following sentence. I hope someone could help me.

• During the Roman occupation of Britain, and possibly on the instructions of Emperor Claudius, engineers drove oak piles into the mud to provide a stable foundation and surrounded the spring with an irregular stone chamber lined with lead.

Does it mean that the the spring was sorrounded by a stone chamber wahich was internally covered with lead? Thank you for your help. --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what it means. There is some further (interesting) information on this page explaining the use of lead (plumbus) and how it gave its name to "plumbing" which is the English word for all aspects of domestic water pipes. --Simple Bob (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Curse tablets

• These curse tablets were written in Latin, and usually laid curses on people by whom the writer felt they had been wronged.

Could anyone tell me what that means? Thanks. --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You upset me or do something bad to me i.e. you wrong me. I write a tablet to curse you. --Simple Bob (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of oak piles in the Roman Baths

• During the Roman occupation of Britain, and possibly on the instructions of Emperor Claudius, engineers drove oak piles into the mud to provide a stable foundation and surrounded the spring with an irregular stone chamber lined with lead.

I was unable to find any references about the use of oak piles for the foundations. Could ayone provide one? --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

For more detail see Roman Baths (Bath). Ref 12 on that page takes you to and essay by Moira Allen which mentions the Oak piles.— Rod ^talk 16:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ralph Allen's country house

• Allen, in order to advertise the quality of his quarried limestone, commissioned the elder John Wood to build him a country house on his Prior Park estate between the city and the mines.

The reference provided said nothing about the fact that Allen had commissioned the elder John Wood to build a country house in order to advertise the quality of his quarried limestone. Isn't there any other reference which could confirm that? --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Georgian architecture

• The architects John Wood the elder and his son John Wood the younger laid out the new quarters in streets and squares, the identical façades of which gave an impression of palatial scale and classical decorum.

1. I couldn't understand what that in refers to. Does it mean that John Wood the elder and John Wood the younger laid out the new quarters with streets and squares included?

2. When talking about the facades, that of which refers to the new quarters? I mean, are they the new quarters' facades?

3. Does the word decorum mean decoration? I was unable to find it in the Oxford dictionary. --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

1. The new quarters (built-up places) were laid out arranged as streets and squares (in meaning into or in the form of).

2. Yes, of which = of the new quarters = of the new streets and squares.

3. No, decorum = orderliness or being appropriately civilised.

— Richardguk (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what you mean with "new quarters arranged as streets and squares". New quarters built along new streets? And how can anything be built up on a square if it is an open area? And how is it that a square can have a facade if there're no buildings on it? --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The new quarters consisted of streets and squares. In this context, "streets and squares" refers not just to the roads and open spaces but includes also the buildings along their edges.

Similarly, in this context, "new quarters" means newly-developed areas of the town, including the spaces as well as the buildings.

— Richardguk (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

World War II

This article says that during World War II, between the evening of 25 April and the early morning of 27 April 1942, Bath suffered three air raids in reprisal for RAF raids on the German cities of Lübeck and Rostoc. However, the article about the Baedeker Blitz states that Bath was attacked on the 25th and 26th April only. --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If 25 and 26 April means the two nights of 25 and 26 April (i.e. the night of 25/26 and the night of 26/27), then that would include the early mornings of 26 and 27 April, so the articles are consistent. — Richardguk (talk)

Population in 1881

The article says: The population of the city had reached 40,020 by the time of the 1801 census. However, the website ([4]) shows different figures.--Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a link to the figures for "Bath RegD/PLU", a Poor Law Union and registration district (1881 population = 70,626). The current civil parish of Bath was apparently not created until 1900, but its census estimate for 10 years prior to the 1901 census (ie 1891) is 51,844 (compared to 75,196 for the RegD/PLU) so it seems likely that the 1881 registration district covered a much broader area than what is considered to be the city itself. — Richardguk (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Does anyone have any references for this three sentences?

• A postwar review of inadequate housing led to the clearance and redevelopment of large areas of the city in a postwar style, often at variance with the Georgian style of the city. In the 1950s the nearby villages of Combe Down, Twerton and Weston were incorporated into Bath to enable the development of further housing, much of it council housing. In the 1970s and 1980s it was recognised that conservation of historic buildings was inadequate, leading to more care and reuse of buildings and open spaces. --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This link might lead to some suitalble sources for various periods http://www.bathintime.co.uk/category.php?catid=6652 Francis E Williams (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the ref at the end of that para [5], mostly $5.7.6 to $5.7.11. It's a precis - the "review" was Abercrombie's plan, and this could be expanded upon, though probably in the Architecture section. That the new housing was largely council housing is local knowledge, not clearly from the source, I'm afraid. If you think the source needs to be followed more closely we'd have to go with "prefabricated". Rwendland (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Physical geography: hot springs

Any reference for these sentences?

• The water which bubbles up from the ground, as geothermal springs, previously fell as rain on the Mendip Hills. It percolates down through limestone aquifers to a depth of between 2700 and 4300 metres (c. 9000-14,000 ft) where geothermal energy raises the water temperature to between 64 and 96 °C (c. 147-205°F). Under pressure, the heated water rises to the surface along fissures and faults in the limestone. This process is similar to an artificial one known as Enhanced Geothermal System which also makes use of the high pressures and temperatures below the Earth's crust.

There is a link in that paragraph but I was unable to access the website. --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Bath Beer Festival

Does anyone know when the Bath Beer Festival was founded? --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Jane Austen

What does the expressión "take the waters" mean in this sentences?

• Austen's later Northanger Abbey and Persuasion are largely set in the city and feature descriptions of taking the waters, social life, and music recitals.

Does anyone know a reference for that sentence? --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This section Spa#Bathing_in_the_18th_century describes pretty well the range of activities involved in "taking the waters" - which is more than just drinking the spa water. --Simple Bob (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Charles Dickens

Another question of vocabulary: what does o' warm flat irons mean here?

• Taking the waters is also described in Charles Dickens' novel The Pickwick Papers in which Pickwick's servant, Sam Weller, comments that the water has "a very strong flavour o' warm flat irons". --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Royal Victoria Park and Green Flag Award

I've just seen that the Royal Victoria Park is not listed in http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.00100200800k00a006 but this article says so. Does anybody have another reference? --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Royal Victoria Park and Roman Temple

• The replica of a Roman Temple was used at the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley in 1924.

Does it mean that a replica of the Roman Temple in the Royal Victoria Park was exhibited at Wembley, or that the park's Roman temple, which is a replica of a real one, was exhibited at Wembley? --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Bath Rugby

• The team then led the Courage league for six consecutive seasons, from 1988/1989 until 1995/1996

There's a mistake there. According to the Courage League's article, London Wasps won in 1989/1990. --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Bath Rugby won the championship six not consecutive times beteween those years, in 1988/1989, 1990/1991 – 1993/1994 and 1995/1996. The text should be corrected. --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What are residents of Bath called?

Bathians? Bathites? Mr Grant 20:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Grant (talk • contribs)

Bathonians Francis E Williams (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Mr Grant 05:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Grant (talk • contribs)

Theatre Royal

There is a contradiction between this article and the article about the Theatre Royal, Bath. This article says that "the early 18th century saw Bath acquire its first purpose-built theatre, the Theatre Royal", while the theatre's article says that "the theatre itself was erected in 1805". --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The theatre's article states "The theatre itself was erected in 1805, replacing a former theatre of the same name". We can infer that when this article mentions "[Bath's] first purpose-built theatre, the Theatre Royal" it is refering to the pre-1805 building. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it likely that "early 18th century" is simply a mistaken intended reference to 1805? It would be an easy slip for authors to write "18th century" for "19th century" if they are thinking of a date that starts with "18". — Richardguk (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is OK. I've recently found some information that says that the original theatre was built in 1705 and then rebuilt several times, the last of which in 1805. So it was in the 18th century when the first purpuse-built theatre was constructed. --Pablo.ad.92 (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is confusing two quite separate buildings both of which have been the Theatre Royal one is the current Theatre Royal in Saw Close which was built to succeed the original Theatre Royal in Old Orchard street which is now a Masonic hall and museum [6]Helmsleyturk (talk) 09

28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We now have an article on the Old Orchard Street Theatre and I have reworded the two entries relating to this and the Theatre Royal, Bath.— Rod ^talk 11:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Town twinning

Would anybody be willing to put those in? InMooseWeTrust (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It is already in the article Bath, Somerset#Twinning --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"Univallate"

This article uses the phrase "univallate Iron Age hill fort".
It turns out that lots of WP articles use this precise phrase.
Now, I studied Latin for 5 years. So I will take a wild guess and say that this word probably means "single-walled" because, based on this evidence, there must be hill forts with a double defensive wall too.
I am fifty. I've been in hill forts on trips to Britain. I don't recall ever seeing this word before today. And I've been to Bath.
The word is not listed in the dictionary I normally use.
Is this word too specialist to be appearing in a general article on a popular tourist destination like Bath without a definition?
Or is this now common parlance in the UK? Maybe it is.
Varlaam (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have seen it used in lots of places, but I read lots of history & archaeology books etc. Take a look at Hill fort#Types of hill fort where you will see it defined as "a single circuit of ramparts for enclosure and defence".— Rod ^talk 18:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree the term could easily be pertinent in an article with direct relevance to that subject.

Here it is entirely incidental.

People are interested in knowing about the Crescent, and they're getting a little lecture on hill forts.

I think in this article we delete the word, do not replace it, and the article runs more smoothly. It is too much detail on a matter of little consequence.

What say you?

Varlaam (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the word "univallate".— Rod ^talk 07:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That means we get to use the template  Done. Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Public transit

I was reading the section on transportation, and was wondering what kind of municipal bus service the city has. There is only a single sentence where it is made mention of. It's it publically owned and operated, privately owned and operated, a hybrid of the two? What's the name of the service? This should probably get more say. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Royal Victoria Park and Roman Temple

In light of the many attractions, pubs, etc. named after Queen Victoria, I've added a section about ath and Queen Victoria, citing comments she made as an 18 year old in her diary. I was thinking of expanding this. I'd welcome comments. --BrianKelly (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've always wondered what pronunciation people from Bath use for their city's name. It's in the south of England, so you might expect the broad ɑː, but then most people I've known from Bristol (which is near Bath) have used the short a. Which is used in Bath?

To relate this to the article, I've noticed that the IPA uses æ rather than a. Is this a Wikipedia convention? I am aware that some phoneticians use æ, but the Oxford Dictionary now uses a and I think that is more representative of how most people in Britain say the TRAP vowel. Epa101 (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In my 62 year association with my birthplace, and having personal experience of over 10,000 clients in the area, I can provide for you the results of my experience. Most of the local dialects place the emphasis firmly on the letter "a". The resulting sound is likened to a shortened sheeps "Baa" sound. Most inhabitants from the north of England pronounce the name as in the the word describing bathing, (Bath as in Path). I think the ae use stems from the old english word Bathe for the name of the settlement. I hope this helps.Francis E Williams (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That is interesting. As you say that Bath residents pronounce it differently from those in the North of England, I presume you mean ɑː or perhaps a: (which is heard in West Country accents). The people from Bristol I've met have said "Bath" the same way that Northerners say it. I wonder why. Perhaps they just wanted to fit in up here. Epa101 (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a historical rivalry between the cities, Bristol, a port .. Bath, a home to the Portly {:)Francis E Williams (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As a northern who has lived in Bath for over 16 keys I say 'Bath' as in 'path'. I don't think one can easily modify one's vowel sounds, especially for the northern 'a' sound. This is unlike other regional pronunciations of placenames for which saying e.g. Alnwick as 'Anick' wouldn't sound awkward. --BrianKelly (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

In Newport and South Wales it's pronouned "Baaaaaath". But surely we have to follow IPA for RP here? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Panorama from Alexandra Park

Hi editors. I recently took what I think is a superior photo of Bath from Alexandra Park. I noticed there's already an image with a similar vantage point in the article. I actually think my image would probably make a good lead image, but rather than rock the boat, I figured it'd be best to mention it here first, as the current lead image is still useful and a home should be made for it elsewhere. The image is:

proposed new image

current image in the article

Does anyone want to be bold? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising it for discussion here. I'm no photo expert but would have no problem with it replacing the current image from the same spot, however because of the shape (landscape v portrait) I'm not sure it would work as a lead image.— Rod ^talk 06:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

True, landscape images tend to look quite small in the infobox, but a whole view of Bath seems more useful as a lead image than one pretty street doesn't it? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Although the newer image shows slightly more of the city, especially as there is no tree in the foreground, the atmospheric haze makes it inferior in my opinion. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It's unfortunate that there is haze , but surely a complete view is more important than a slight lack of contrast due to haze? Haze is an aesthetic (not encyclopaedic) detraction. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The focus and colour are better quality on the buildings, which are after all what the viewer could be interested in. Technically it is better and the aspect of the light quality is more important than the sky line haze, which of course is not. I have no hesitation in recomending it as a replacement.Billy from Bath (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Bath and District National School

The building with 32 corners existing 1816-1896 mentioned at A La Ronde does have a connex to an existing school? Should it be mentioned in the article anyways? --Helium4 (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was built by John Lowder in 1816: [7] But the fact that it disappeared more than 100 years ago may detract from it's present day notability? Do we know its exact location in the city? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Further information here [[8]]Billy from Bath (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Bath's Beauty

Do you think we should mention the fact it is often regarded as one of the "most beautiful" cities in the UK and the world? Almost all videos and publications that talk about Bath at some point mention its beauty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.239.39 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 9 October 2013‎

Beauty is a very subjective term. It could be added in the form "X describes Bath as the most beautiful" (with a citation perhaps the telegraph or UNESCO - but not youtube or giddylimits), but unless the person saying it has some particular qualification to assess the beauty of cities this is just one persons opinion.— Rod ^talk 07:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes but per WP:NPOV there may also be reliable sources contesting the city's proclaimed beauty. If so, they also deserve due weight, i.e. a short mention, assuming sources aren't full of critics contesting such. I'll try to have a look. -- Trevj (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Venue Magazine Mention

magazine has now closed and been taken over by large company, previous staff quotes here http://tellingfrombirdstoll.tumblr.com/post/68446436005/venue-the-last-post
more info here http://www.bristol247.com/2013/11/29/youll-regret-death-venue-magazine-says-founder-56473/ Veryscarymary (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

---

References

Tears For Fears

Iconic band of the 1980s not mentioned at all in Bath's culture section. Suggest it is added (I for one would not know how to do so appropriately) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.108.131 (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge

Would you like to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers for participating in The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, like this one.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

• Core articles
• Missing article hotlist
• Missing photograph hotlist

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

• Bristol (Day 1-3)
• Cornwall and Scilly (Day 4-6)
• Devon (Day 7-9)
• Dorset (Day 10-12)
• Gloucestershire (Day 13-15)
• Somerset (Day 16-18)
• Wiltshire (Day 19-21)

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod ^talk 16:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Bath, Somerset Panorama - April 2011.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bath, Somerset Panorama - April 2011.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 6, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-08-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A panoramic view of Bath, Somerset, looking north from Alexandra Park. The English city, known for its Roman Baths and Georgian architecture, had a population of 88,859 in 2011. It is home to software, publishing and service-oriented industries, and a bustling tourist industry which hosts more than 1 million staying visitors and 3.8 million day visitors annually.Photograph: David Iliff

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Bath, Somerset. 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/20150504193813/http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=204162 to http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=204162
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150504193819/http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=203244 to http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=203244
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071113094712/http://www.bathmuseum.co.uk/biography.htm to http://www.bathmuseum.co.uk/biography.htm
• Replaced archive link http://www.romanbaths.co.uk/roman-sacred-spring with https://web.archive.org/web/20071102122621/http://romanbaths.co.uk:80/index.cfm?fuseAction=SM.nav&UUID=F9F320C4-1A95-4C04-AC609094E5B5DFD3 on http://www.romanbaths.co.uk/index.cfm?fuseAction=SM.nav&UUID=F9F320C4-1A95-4C04-AC609094E5B5DFD3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150428135539/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=442109 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=442109
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150502233639/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=442760 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=442760
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150502233639/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=442760 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=442760
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150428134233/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=443316 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=443316
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150428135539/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=442109 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=442109
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150428181731/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=443742 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=443742
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/10-places-visit-Easter-Bath/story-15589562-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301214737/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=445855 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=445855
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130705094933/http://www.completefrance.com/language-culture/twin-towns to http://www.completefrance.com/language-culture/twin-towns

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Page number search

I was asked at WP:RX to perform a search of some of the books cited in this article to find the correct page numbers. I'm putting my results here for Rodw to act upon. If you need scans of most of these pages, I can provide them, but please be certain you actually need to see the page (I'd have to go dig up the book again to get a scan - hassle for me). I've noted where scans are not obtainable.

• A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects, 1600–1840
  • Important note: These pages are from the third edition, 1997. You will need to alter the cite.
  • The first cite is page 97.
  • The second cite is page 96, but there are inaccuracies in the text. He became city architect and surveyor in 1776 according to this source. He later became deputy chamberlain as well in 1779. He was removed from his chamberlain position in 1791 due to "irregularities in his accounts". His removal from the architect and surveyor positions followed in 1793.
  • I cannot provide a scan of these pages, as the book is for library use only in a library with no scanners.
• Handbook of British Chronology
  • First cite, fact that he's Bishop of Bath and Wells is on page 137. Interesting note: In 1090, John of Tours transferred his position to Bath. It was originally solely at Wells. "About 1140", the see at Wells was "restored" by Robert, Bishop of Wells. It's unclear whether that was intended to be wholly separate originally, but "a joint system of election was gradually established". They were originally titled "Bishop of Bath", but this was changed to "Bishop of Bath and Wells" in the 13th century. The title "Abbot of Bath" is not in the text, as best I can tell, and there's no index that would make it easy to find if it's buried somewhere. I would recommend removing that title unless it's supported by another source and focus on the moving of the see from Wells to Bath. That's clearly more important for the town of Bath's history anyway.
  • Second cite, I was unable to locate in the book. It's highly unlikely it's in there. The book is essentially a listing of all "people of power" in England during recorded history, with very little additional text other than the occasional footnote.
• Subjects and Citizens: Nation, Race, and Gender from Oroonoko to Anita Hill
  • The page in question is undoubtedly page 405, but the cite is heavily misleading. The book discusses how kitchens were placed in the back of a house to keep servants out of view, with "Queen Anne" (homeowner, high society, men, etc.) in the front while "Mary Anne" (hired women) were in the back. This does relate to architecture in the sense that it often involved staircases built in the backs of the houses, but the quote has nothing to do with the way the facades were rented and built out behind the front. More importantly, there is no mention of Bath itself anywhere in this section!

More to come later today, but I have a study group meeting now. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• The Story of Roman Bath
  • The pages are 202–203, but the content is slightly misleading. The immediate cause of the baths at Bath finally being abandoned (according to the source) was rising water levels. The Roman decline was certainly a factor as well, as a more prosperous Roman Empire would have supplied the technical skills and funding to address the issues. The baths already had faced a diminished role for several reasons in the years leading up to the final nail of rising sea levels.
• The English Spa, 1560–1815: A Social History
  • There are many pages to go through here, so I scanned portions of two relevant chapters. Rodw, email me for the scan.
• Battles and Generals of the Civil Wars
  • Page 81 states that, at the end of the battle, the Roundheads retreated toward Bath. The Royalists likely would have followed and driven them out, but a chance explosion of an ammunition cart forced them to retreat and regroup. There is no further mention of Bath until page 152, when Royalist troops marched through Bath. It's unclear whether they had the city before then. It's very possible the Royalists regrouped and took Bath after the battle described on page 81 based on the context of the source, but I would say it's not directly supported by the source. You should seek another source for that claim.

The last one is still in transit, but you're otherwise good to go. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work on this. I have added the page numbers and revised text as advised, adding further references where needed. I have sent an email about The English Spa, 1560–1815: A Social History.— Rod ^talk 07:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bath, Somerset. 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/20090915175837/http://www.clevelandpools.org.uk/index.php5?title=Introduction to http://www.clevelandpools.org.uk/index.php5?title=Introduction
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121222203955/https://applications.bathspa.ac.uk/news/article.asp?article=322 to https://applications.bathspa.ac.uk/news/article.asp?article=322

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Bath, Somerset. 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/20160930210909/http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/12million-bath-quays-regeneration-project/story-29370279-detail/story.html to http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/12million-bath-quays-regeneration-project/story-29370279-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518105830/http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Bath-MP-Don-Foster-says-stand-2015-election/story-20414942-detail/story.html to http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Bath-MP-Don-Foster-says-stand-2015-election/story-20414942-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151009040146/http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/s-integral-role-city-s-rich-industrial-heritage/story-11346714-detail/story.html to http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/s-integral-role-city-s-rich-industrial-heritage/story-11346714-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923192528/http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Pageturners/story-19340352-detail/story.html to http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Pageturners/story-19340352-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023130633/http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Hollywood-comes-Bath-Les-Miserables-filmed/story-17148621-detail/story.html to http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Hollywood-comes-Bath-Les-Miserables-filmed/story-17148621-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140417001818/http://www.avongardenstrust.org.uk/gardens.html to http://www.avongardenstrust.org.uk/gardens.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923182800/http://www.bathspa.ac.uk/homepage/news/history-of-education-at-newton-park-uncovered to http://www.bathspa.ac.uk/homepage/news/history-of-education-at-newton-park-uncovered
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150505003708/http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/odddownafc/location/ to http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/odddownafc/location/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616042646/http://www.bathamphibians.co.uk/docs/City_of_Bath_Triathlon_Race_Pack_2012.pdf to http://www.bathamphibians.co.uk/docs/City_of_Bath_Triathlon_Race_Pack_2012.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151015195452/http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/trams-work-Bath/story-26246819-detail/story.html to http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/trams-work-bath/story-26246819-detail/story.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bath, Somerset. 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/20121010050612/http://www.100welshheroes.com/en/biography/saint%20david to http://www.100welshheroes.com/en/biography/saint%20david
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071207011018/http://www.dickens-literature.com/The_Pickwick_Papers/ to http://www.dickens-literature.com/The_Pickwick_Papers/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130414222737/http://www.gov-news.org/gov/uk/news/bristolbath_to_south_coast_study_final_reports/57227.html to http://www.gov-news.org/gov/uk/news/bristolbath_to_south_coast_study_final_reports/57227.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bath, Somerset. 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/20150427092015/http://www.norland.co.uk/contact to http://www.norland.co.uk/contact
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130924002936/http://www.bathrugby.com/club/history/ to http://www.bathrugby.com/club/history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129010615/http://www.bathroadstudios.co.uk/whos-here/ to http://www.bathroadstudios.co.uk/whos-here/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Twerton railway station reopening

If you want Twerton on Avon station to be reopened in the western suburbs of Bath, please sign this petition. Many thanks.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/open-twerton-railway-station?source=facebook-share-button&time=1513766334 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.154.4 (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Bath and local government

I made an edit to indicate that Bath is part of BANES (Bath and North East Somerset unitary authority), and thereby reduced the importance of the ceremonial county. Am I being too pedantic about this? What is more important for Wikipedia, the position of a city in local government or its historic relationships? I say the former; but the edit could be controversial as some people might be more attached to the latter. Please accept that I made the change in good faith. Sadgrove (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks alright to me. There is always a problem of balancing the historic and current local government arrangements in Wikipedia articles. Local government boundaries are always changing and people are always complaining. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but there was nothing wrong in the 'old' (ie long-established, and correct, and in-line with how English cities articles on Wikipedia are introduced) article introduction. Please don't mess about with this. Sumorsǣte (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

As for being in Somerset being 'historic' - too right it's historic. It's also correct. BANES is a recent phenomena and outside of local government matters means nothing to people. Sumorsǣte (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

What’s going on with the opening sentence?

“Bath is the ninth largest city, by population, in the county of Somerset, England” is not true at all. It’s the ninth largest city in the south west but the largest in Somerset. 90.241.170.185 (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Has now been corrected. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)