From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleHampshire was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
June 8, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 4, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 27, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Having thought about trying to improve the article a little this evening, and found it frustrating, I decided it would be more helpful to spend an hour on a review (perhaps with an eye for reinstatement of GA, though some way off). I’d welcome any comments.

  • LEAD
    • It doesn’t summarise the article, and doesn’t need sources as long as these are in the body.
    • Seems OK
    • There are some unsourced statements.
    • It’s unbalanced, heavily weighted towards ancient history.
    • There is a main article link, so the section could be cut considerably.
      • Having said that, the "main" article contains less than this one, and has multiple issues
    • The museum mention should go elsewhere, Done (put in Culture section)
    • as should the US emigration paragraph ( Done).
    • Very short of sources,
    • and should be combined. Done
    • Again, sources missing.
    • No mention of industries such as extraction of raw materials,  Done
    • energy
    • or fishing,
    • and too little about everything else.
    • Sources missing.
    • The table is too detailed, and could be distilled into a paragraph of text.
    • No sources.
    • Natural regions – not sure what this is supposed to be saying.
    • Geology and topography (including natural features) need to be separated. It’s a muddle, as I found when looking at the Hills subsection. Done
    • Wildlife is not helpful, or sourced.
    • The climate data are overwhelming, and three charts are for the south coast, while Farnborough isn’t marked  Done on the map in the next section.
    • This should be nearer the top of the article. Done
    • Settlements would be a simpler name. Done
    • A detailed list of population figures isn’t necessary.
    • Green belt should be in Geography. Done
    • This is heavily weighted towards sport.
    • Very few sources.
    • Source needed for newspapers.
    • No sources.
    • Some better-known names should be in here  Done (by taking from Culture section)
    • (+ sources)
  • MISSING SECTION: Health  Done
    • 50-odd references just isn’t adequate for an article of this importance
    • There are quite a few odd bits of information in the wrong sections
    • Some of the See alsos could go in the main text
    • There are too few images, some of which don’t help illustrate the text
    • There is nothing on important buildings, except a picture of Winchester cathedral
    • There are probably other things I've missed; it's late
    • It goes without saying (saying it anyway) that I'm a big fan of Hampshire, but the article doesn't do it justice, not by a long way
    • These are just my views. Feel free to contradict!

Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good summary of the problems. My starter for 10, Politics should be a subheading of the Governance section, not seperate. I'll look for some more photos to illustrate the article. Anyting in particuar you think is needed? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Murgatroyd49, good starter. Re pics, there should be something appropriate in Commons to illustrate most sections. The Southampton one, for example, is mostly trees! Cheers, Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll start hunting. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some excellent additions, Murgatroyd49; any more? Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, having a hunt through my collection trying to find photos that aren't Southampton and Portsmouth! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a very helpful review. I'd suggest leaving the lead until we've improved the rest of the article, and then rewriting the lead to summarise it at the end. Clearly there's a lot of work to do, but it's great to have some focused tasks to work on as, like you, I found it a bit daunting to consider the whole article in one go. WaggersTALK 10:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree on lead, Waggers. Something I found odd today on the page information: 124 people watching, and 33,000 views in 30 days. There must be more people interested in helping to rescuing this article!? Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section order[edit]

I've moved some sections; hopefully now a more logical sequence. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jalsa Salana[edit]

Would it be appropriate to include a mention of Jalsa Salana, the largest gathering of Muslims in western Europe, which is held in Hampshire? If so which section should it go in? Ethnicity and religion under demographics does not seem quite right. The source is [1].SovalValtos (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It certainly needs to be included. Featured article Dorset covers religious sites, but ethnicity and religion would do for now I think.Charles (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an event, rather than a demographic, I think the Culture section would be better, perhaps as a subsection Events. There may be other significant events or festivals in Hampshire that could be included there. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How strong is this festival's connection with Hampshire? The citation says 'every year', which is meaninglessly vague. Other references i can see do not even mention Hampshire, so the notability seems to lie with the event rather than its location. Has this festival been held elsewhere ever? How long has it taken place in Hampshire? If its location shifts soon, will anybody really care in decades to come that it once happened in Hampshire? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've put in some annual events, this one included. If it moves elsewhere in the future, we can remove it. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User talk:Roger 8 Roger I do see the point about the association with Hampshire. My OR finds every year for about ten years at a 200 acre farm in Worldham bought specifically for the purpose. Previously at Tilford, Surrey at another area still owned and used by them (Ahmadiyyas) in connection with the event. There will be ample references in both national and local papers.SovalValtos (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The road section refers to the ancient trackways as "dongas", allegedly a Matabele word or even, according to some versions, a Massai word. I'm not convinced by this, I believe it was an expression adopted by the "tribes" of protestors at Twyford Down and has no real relevance to this article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The word seems to have been a locally-used one before the protestors adopted it (see Dongas road protest group), but I can't see a reliable source for that. The source given (Hansard) doesn't clearly point to its origin, although it is referred to as place rather than people. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately google translate doesn't stretch to Matabele :-) As an aside I see we've reached 100 citations.
I would remove the mention unless there is a good source to be found; anyway, it's more appropriate for Winchester or Twyford Down than a general article on Hampshire. Yes, the citation count is a good sign. We're getting there, gradually! Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, I'm happy now. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The lead is confusing, contradictory and, the second paragraph in particular, is difficult to read. I am not quite sure where to start changing it. Perhaps some more devoted editors would be able to assist? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roger 8 Roger: Yes, it could do with a rewrite - right now it's a far cry from meeting WP:LEAD. I think the plan of action is as follows:
  1. Make sure any information currently in the lead is included in the relevant section of the article, with citations there
  2. Delete all but the first paragraph, and add a paragraph summarising each (top level) section of the article

WaggersTALK 08:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tony's original idea was to improve the rest of the article out first and then go back and sort out the header. Perhaps the time has now come to do that on the lines that Waggers suggests. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think it is time to improve the lead. I'll have a look as well. I still think the article could be pushed to GA without a huge amount more work. Unfortunately, I have frittered my WP time away on other topics... Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done a little work; hope looking a little better. First para needs simplifying, and probably the second. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm going to archive some of this talk page, if no objections. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Enullnull - I won't revert your edit (even though you're not following WP:BRD advice), but there is no basis for the ethnicity figure of 96%, when at the 2011 census the figure was 89% white. Please delete it or add a reference to back up the 96%. Can't really see the point in an ethnicity figure in the info box, anyway; smacks slightly of racial bias? Thanks, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why was this page moved without consultation and how do I undo the move? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK I've moved it back. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I have reinstated the hatnote which had been removed. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems obvious that there should have been consultation before making such a change. Should the editor who did it be advised before they make a habit of it? In case anyone else considers making a change in future, please bring the subject to talk first.SovalValtos (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The editor is experienced, which makes the change a little puzzling. He said 'vague/dab' so I assume he is thinking of 'New Hampshire' or Hampshire county, Virginia. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I heard of this place yesterday for the first time ever, and I'm relatively experienced with my geography. Therefore, if I am unknowledgeable about this location, then I can't imagine that the majority of Wikipedia readers would ever have heard of it, either. True, I should have discussed first, you're correct; but the place seems so obscure that I took it for granted that most would agree, my error. Castncoot (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's probably not the best approach to think something "obscure" because you haven't heard of it. As it happens, Hampshire certainly isn't. I'm sure there's several dozen large cities in the United States that I haven't heard of (and my geography is fairly good), but I wouldn't think that makes them obscure by any objective standard. --Inops (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hampshire County Council coat of arms[edit]

I queried the removal of the HCC coat of arms by Julia Gavin, and got this response (comments welcome):

Hi Tony

Thank you so much for leaving a message. I work in Corporate Marketing at Hampshire County Council. The image of the Hampshire County Council coat of arms that features on a number of Wikipedia pages IS NOT the approved version of the coat of arms. I've tried to find the source and it looks like it has been uploaded by User:Fenn-O-maniC - this is not work officially commissioned by Hampshire County Council and we do not want it being circulated online as it misrepresents Hampshire County Council.

Please have it removed from all instances it appears, including wiki-Heraldry and Wikimedia Commons.

My email is if you wish to verify my comment.

Many thanks and I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards Julia Gavin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Gavin at Hampshire County Council (talkcontribs) 16:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Julia. Can you point me to the actual arms of HCC, if that's possible? I am removing it from the Hampshire article for now, as it is not strictly necessary there, anyway, pending the outcome of this discussion. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see a process to rename the commons file as "unofficial" is under way here, but I wonder whether it shouldn't be deleted altogether. However, my knowledge of commons procedures is next to nil, so I will leave it there. Thanks, Julia, for pointing it out. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The versions of the county council coats of arms used in the various Wikipedia pages differ from the official versions because most of the official depictions are still under copyright law and thus can't be freely used. As a compromise I've made copyright free versions of the county council arms. These versions are still heraldically speaking the same as the original arms, just have a different graphical depiction. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood, but if the depiction is not acceptable to HCC (it misrepresents them), then we cannot use it on WP to represent them. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mind you that before the copyright free versions most of the county (council) pages lacked any depictions of the arms and people looking up the county council symbols wouldn't have found any images of them here on Wikipedia. I must emphasize that a depiction or, more properly an emblazonment, of a coat of arms is valid as long as it follows the original blazon written when the arms were originally granted. For example the arms of HCC need to show the Royal Crown and a rose in specific colours, which the copyright version does. I reckon this issue has more to do with people lacking knowledge in heraldry and mixing the complicated art of coats of arms with that of logos and such. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd love to know how the illustration "misrepresents" HCC exactly. If you look at the heraldic blazon given on, you'll find that Fenn-O-maniC's version matches it in every respect. It may not look identical to whichever logotype the council happens to use, but that doesn't make it an invalid depiction of their arms. Zacwill (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Fenn-O-maniC and Zacwill; the employee's request is a misunderstanding of heraldic practice and inconsistent with what's done on other heraldic pages. Wikipedia is a free and open resource and does not comport with every brand strategy. Until there is consensus to change, I've reverted the removal. - Novov T C 01:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Tony, we have no objections to the Coat of Arms created by Fenn-O-maniC, as long as it is clearly labelled either a depiction or a representation of Hampshire County Council's Coat of Arms in the title and subtitle. Thanks, Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Gavin at Hampshire County Council (talkcontribs) 13:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the comments from everyone above. While I can see there is no substantial objection to the (depiction of) the arms on the article's infobox, even given equal prominence to the county's flag, I still wonder why the arms need to be there at all, when (a) the article is about Hampshire, and not HCC and (b) the arms do not appear on the HCC article. Am I missing something? Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The infoboxes do have the option to display the arms above the council section. At one point I did try to move them there for some of the counties but the edits were reversed as to "fit with the other country subdivision styles" despite the ownership of the arms being very different in England compared to the German states for example. In some county pages the arms are correctly labelled as those of the county councils but I've yet to figure out how this is done in the editing. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't fathom it. The full infobox template Template:Infobox UK England county doesn't help. Until there's an explanation, I suggest dropping the arms (as they are not Hampshire's) for the time being. Sorry that's not helpful. Maybe you should ask at Template talk:Infobox settlement? Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image is available in commons for those who want to look.SovalValtos (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is just how heraldry works in Britain. Places themselves aren't granted arms – instead, their governing bodies are. The arms in the City of London infobox, for example, technically belong to the City of London Corporation. The same goes for any other city or county, including Hampshire. Zacwill (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Hampshire Council has no jurisdiction in this matter as it does not fall under them to govern the correct recreation of Blazons on the Internet, outside their area. I defend the Blazon creator & say wikimedia should keep it up. 13:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]