Talk:Bath, Somerset

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Bath, Somerset is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 25, 2005.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cities (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Somerset (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject UK geography (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject England (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Historic sites (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject World Heritage Sites (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Bath, Somerset is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Bath, Somerset at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 
Version 0.5      (Rated FA-Class)
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Miles to London[edit]

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)

Photo gallery - remove?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[1] 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)

Population[edit]

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)

[2] 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[edit]

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,[1] 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 [2] 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.[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • 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)

Georgian architecture[edit]

  • 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)

Ralph Allen's country house[edit]

  • 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)

Theatre Royal[edit]

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 [3]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)

Population in 1881[edit]

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)

World War II[edit]

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)

References[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Jane Austen[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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)

Royal Victoria Park and Roman Temple[edit]

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)

Bath Rugby[edit]

  • 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)

What are residents of Bath called?[edit]

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

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 (talkcontribs)

Pronunciation[edit]

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)

Town twinning[edit]

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)

Panorama from Alexandra Park[edit]

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)

"Univallate"[edit]

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 Yes check.svg Done. Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Public transit[edit]

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)

Bath and District National School[edit]

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: [6] 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 [[7]]Billy from Bath (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Bath's Beauty[edit]

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.[3][4][5][6][7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.239.39 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]


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