Jump to content

Talk:Bath, Somerset/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Railway rewrite

The text previously read:

In addition, the city lies on the Kennet and Avon Canal, the navigable River Avon and on the main London-West railway line (once joining three different railways, the Great Western Railway, the Midland Railway, which also half-owned with the London and South Western Railway the the Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway), which connects the city to the rest of the country.

which makes no sense to me. Surely the London-West railway was the Great Western Railway, not just a linking line between the GWR and the Midland, etc. In any case I think trying to deal with both canal and rail in one big sentence is asking too much.

I've also moved the ownership details of the S&DJR to its page, where it belongs rather than cluttering up the Bath page. Hopefully my changes actually say what I think the above was trying to say. -- Chris j wood 21:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good edit. The Avon valley inland of Bath, btw., is something of a classic as it has all 4 transportation types in same narrow space (road, rail, canal, river). Often quoted in Geog. textbooks. Would be nice to capture that. quota
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

WP:RM

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Oppose. Disambiguation is at the top of the Bath page for anyone who needs any of the others. Philip Baird Shearer 10:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose: "Bath, England" is not common English parlance as it is in America i.e. "Bath, Michigan", also the other towns are named after Bath in England. Giano | Talk 11:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ditto PBS and Giano - Bath is internationally understood to mean "the one wots in England". OldakQuill 15:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. James F. (talk) 15:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support move to either "Bath, England" or "Bath, Somerset". "Bath" should be an disambiguation. --A D Monroe III 15:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the primary encylopaedic use of the word. In a dictionary, yes, the hot tub might take precedence, but this is not a dictionary. quota
  • Oppose. Disambiguation is at the top of the page. This isn't the Wiktionary and we never add designations like that in British English. — OwenBlacker 21:59, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

If there was an article on the physical item then it should be under "Bath" (common usage), but the disambiguation page should not be here. As currently most of the suggested other pages are for places (most of which are not written), the first, the City of Bath, is the best fit.

There is also the practical question of having to fix a lot of broken links if this move is made Philip Baird Shearer 10:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and even in the case of the physical object - I would still say the majority of users would come for the city. The disambiguation could then point to "the object or other meanings" --Oldak Quill 15:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is that an American assertion about the age of British plumbing and an Australian assertion on state of British hygiene? ;-) --Philip Baird Shearer 11:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on whether a rename is appropriate. However if the article is renamed it should not be to Bath, England as that does not fit the disambiguation standard for English place names, which is @place@, @ceremonial-county@, ie. in this case Bath, Somerset. -- Chris j wood 13:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Being a resident of Bath, I do not think this appropriate. Regardless of the fact that the votes, to-date, are against the move, I never hear the city's location expressed as "Bath, Somerset". It is always "Bath, Bath and North East Somerset" or "Bath, BANES". I realise there is distinction between the ceremonial and actual county but what is the point in moving to a never-used name? Further, I would say "Bath, England" is inappropriate - "Bath, United Kingdom" is more so. --Oldak Quill 19:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As a fellow-resident of Bath I have to disagree. Bath & North East Somerset (B&NES/BANES) is the name of the local authority, not the county. Bath, Somerset is both correct and in fairly common use. (Admittedly, though, it fell into disuse during the brief tenure of the late and unlamented County of Avon.)[Roger Houghton]
As another resident of Bath, I have to say that I too believe that 'Bath, Somerset' is the appropriate expression. Mark O'Sullivan 11:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
As a resident of Bath I must say 'Bath, Somerset' is correct (especially in an address) but seldom used. It is too redolent of the much mocked Americanism 'Paris, France'. 88.105.116.240 18:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Decision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 22:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comparison of size with London, Paris and New York

This comparison seems rather odd, given that London, Paris and New York are much, much bigger cities. Also why London, Paris and New York, but not Tokyo, Sao Paolo or Devizes?. No other UK city article contains a similar comparison. I'm very tempted to just remove this comparison. What does the team think?. -- Chris j wood 17:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why it does any harm? Add a comparison to Tokyo if you wish - it merely serves to give people a sense of perspective. --Oldak Quill 17:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Two dot maps?

Is there any reason why there should be two maps giving the location of Bath? I'm tempted to remove the pink one, since most UK places use the green one. -- Joolz 17:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the pink map should go. Joe D (t) 17:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bath Spa name change

Bath Spa University College has now officially changed its name to Bath Spa University. I'm a student there and I recieved a webmail stating as much yesterday. Iron Ghost 11:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

References

There are a lot of "facts" in this article that are not in anyway backed up. There is a vague list of "references" that aren't connected to the text. For example, the introduction has a population figure, which isn't supported by any of the references. This is supposed to be a featured article. Joe D (t) 01:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Bath in the Arts

Is this the same city referred to in Chaucer's tale about the Wife of Bath? -Dozenist talk 01:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Beardo 14:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Article is being vandalized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.52.127 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC).

The geography section was vandalised. --Okieman1200 09:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

All back now, I think. --rbrwr± 09:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

OOPS! I think I accidentally reverted to a vandalised page in error. Sorry! --A bit iffy 11:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

This page has been popular the last few days as far as vandalism goes. Has it been linked off somewhere big? --fvw* 23:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
It's the featured article on the main page. I think that when an article is featured on the main page it's best just to do damage limitation (i.e. remove overt vandalism), but leave everything else and clean it up when things calm down. JeremyA (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Ah, so it is, thanks. Who would have thought it, dear old Bath on the front page.
I'm a big fan of using today's featured article as an intro-to-wikipedia thing, and I'm glad they remain unprotected. --fvw* 23:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I got so tired of people suggesting we protect the main page FA that I created a boilerplate response - user:Raul654/protection →Raul654 23:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Hehe, sometimes I think a lot of "discussions" on wikipedia could benefit from the templating treatment. --fvw* 23:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Media

In the section about media statistics are given for the number of newspapers Sold but I think it needs to say wether this includes the free newspaper.


Relationship to Bath Spa

There is an extrememly stubby article Bath Spa which probably either needs to be removed and turned into a redirect or a disambiguation page. In varying different contexts 'Bath Spa' might either mean the railway station (which the page previously redirected to) or the new Thermae Bath Spa or the city of Bath itself. I wonder if someone who has a better grip on how these things are generally done could take a look at the problem and sort it out? At the moment the page is something of a non-event. Mazzy 13:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Bath Spa is now a disambiguation page. --MichaelMaggs 19:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

springs

I would have liked to find here more information on the hot spring themself : how much water, how it evolved, composition, what it is good for, what it is supposed to be good for, where it comes from, age of the water (how long it was underearth)... It is at least why the City has developped and its name. Astirmays 11:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Still nothing about the spings in Bath ? I don't have the information myself... Astirmays 19:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is so good that I won't do this edit myself: The early sentence "The city is founded on the only naturally-ocurring thermal spa in the United Kingdom" troubles me. Surely one or more of the many Roman baths in Wales, England, and elsewhere in the U.K. were "thermal" springs. They may well be unused since Roman times, but is the word "spa" (as opposed to "spring") the only thing that makes the quoted sentence "accurate"? Stagehand 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Blues festivals

I'd appreciate some detail (perhaps a new stub) about the 1969 and 1970 blues festivals which took place in Bath, host to the likes of Led Zepellin, Fleetwood Mac, Pink Floyd etc. TheMadBaron 07:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of facts

There are many uncited statistics in the climate section. 50% of days are overcast is debatable. Why are there figures for 2003; shouldn't they be for an average year? Plus these figures for 2003 are incorrect, the "extreme" of 14.2C is very odd. If it is refering to whole months, I'd imagine August 2003 to have an average of at least 19C.

The data for demographics is for the Bath and North east Somerset local authority. Bath only makes up about half of the population of this district, possibly slightly less. The paragraph starts by mentioning the surrounding areas, and then goes on to talk about only Bath, when it is still actually refering to the whole district.

The tourism section says "Bath is the most visited city outside of London for tourists travelling to the UK". Has anyone got a source for this? I thought it was Edinburgh but I may be mistaken.

Sorry to trouble you with all that. Marky-Son 00:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Herschel

i thought of adding the fact that William Herschel lived and worked here. but could not quite figure out where it would fit in. --Hydman 09:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree he should be mentioned - there is a link to the William Herschel Museum already in the places of interest section. Maybe he could be added to the 18th Century history section? DuncanHill 10:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Education

I have already cleaned up this section (a while ago), but I think the list of "notable" secondary schools includes all but one of the city's schools. I thought that maybe the list should be made complete, given as a complete list (rather than a list of notable school) and maybe in bullet points rather than a messy paragraph? What's the consensus on this?Abbyemery 17:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

i did it! 86.137.111.33 20:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to make the Education section more compact, with a right aligned table - but this doesn't work as well as I'd hoped, but is perhaps OK. If there are objections we can go back. I think we need an Education in Bath article, so we can trim this section back. BTW Monkton Combe isn't inside the city, so I'll drop that one. Rwendland 12:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What has happened to the Education section? The table is positioned over the text and the text underneath is currently unreadable. Does anyone know how to fix it? Dahliarose 09:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've abandoned the align=right for the table, a shame as it looked nice with a recent Firefox & standard XP SP2 IE. Though it did go weird on narrow window size. Rwendland 14:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm putting Monkton Combe back in, because it is part of the LEA. Feel free to discuss this further. Pittising 21:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
... but if you put in all schools of the LEA (Bath and North East Somerset), you'd need to put in all 13 secondary state schools [1], plus any more private schools. Monkton Combe simply is not in Bath. Rwendland 22:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Food

As a Bath resident I am concerned about the prominence of Sally Lunn buns in Bath related articles generally. This seems more of an advert to me for the resturant rather than an accurate refection of its importance in Bath.--An unsigned contribution.

I have never been to Bath, but Sally Lunn does appear very prominently in the article. From that, one might think she was one of the most important people to ever live in Bath. This is not true? --Filll 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Sally Lunn's house is notable because it is the oldest building in Bath. The buns themselves are famous but not particulary notable. Also, they are disgusting. Not relevant, but my opinion. Abbyemery 16:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand that it isn't Bath's oldest building, despite its tireless self-promotion as such - but I can't remember which building has the better claim. Can current Bath residents help? I left in 1999. Notreallydavid 12:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC) (And the buns never did me any harm.)
If you're talking about age of buildings and prominence then surely the Roman Baths should feature above Sally Lunn's anyway? Since its probably THE oldest 'building'. Also I am a current resident of Bath and, as a resident, I can't say I have ever really visited Sally Lunn's or ever wanted to. Its not really a tourist destination either, its in the back alleys, hard to find and in general the Roman Baths, Costume Shop and Abbey draw far superior crowds. --Bottlecapninja 23:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have done a little editing to remove what might be read as (perhaps inadvertent) promotional copy. --MichaelMaggs 19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a building historian and particularly familiar with Bath. In an article years ago I concluded that the Abbey Church House, with its Elizabethan core (c.1590), has the strongest claim to be the oldest house in Bath. Sally Lunn's was built soon after 1622. The tiny amount of solid evidence on the real Sally Lunn indicates that she lived in the late Georgian period. The story that she was a Huguenot refugee sprang from speculation and is not supported by any evidence. --Genie 13:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bath Hot Springs and Explanation of my Edits

I investigated the Bath Hot Springs to substantiate the claim that they were the only hot springs in the UK. I was able to find that this is true, by some definitions, and compiled a list of 10+ definitions of hot springs with references. I also am not sure how many hot springs there are in Bath. Some of it depends on your definition of what a hot spring is, or a separate hot spring. Some of what are referred to as bath hot springs are in fact drilled wells. So to be honest I do not really know how many hot springs there are, naturally and otherwise, in Bath. I would steer clear of any claims of numbers (I was the one who made the list that apparently shows 5 in Bath. That was just a guess from the sources and I do not trust it that much). --Filll 14:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done. Your skepticism is very valuable. Shame on me for relying on WP as a source (no pun intended) —almost as bad as having no source at all. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a section about the london road and or grosvenor place?

above ^

Famous Bath residents

Should there be a section with this title? If done well it would be interesting and informative, but very long.Notreallydavid 14:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Culture

'Bath Abbey is...the largest concert venue in the city...' Doesn't the Forum have a larger capacity? Notreallydavid 14:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move to Bath, Somerset. Well, I guess some admin has to play Jesus here (in the sense of being crucified afterwards), and we all avoided this RM like a plague... There was a fairly good consensus to move, and a fairly bad consensus where to move. Noting the arguments for Bath (city), slight voting majority and UK naming conventions, and phase of the Moon, (as well as ~1300 incoming links, ZOMG!), well, that's it. I'll try to do a share of incoming links using AWB. Bath (disambiguation) won't be moved until all links are sorted out. If I forget, please relist at RM under "non-controversial" when done. Duja► 10:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Bath → Bath (city)
Bath (disambiguation) → Bath

  • There are many other notable uses for bath and Bath.
  • Disambiguation page for Bath should be at Bath.
  • See Cork (city) and Cork.
  • While there are other relatively small cities named Bath, this Bath is the only large, famous and particularly notable one, and, so, it makes sense to disambiguate it from all the other subjects that share the Bath/bath name with the standard Wikipedia disambiguation parenthetic remark, (city). See Cork (city).
  • Bath is not the primary topic for the name, per WP:DAB#Primary topic, which says:
  • When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (...), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page.
No one can reasonably claim that the city Bath is used "much more" than the word bath, and, so, the city is not the primary meaning of the term, bath, and, therefore, it should not be the primary topic.
  • Others have argued (in the 2005 survey for a similar move, above) that bath (the word, not place) is not encyclopedic, and, so, this city is clearly the most notable encyclopedic use of the name. However, with the fairly recent moves of Cork to Cork (city) and even Misery to Misery (novel), the convention of treating "common words" (like bath and misery) as "unnotable" and "not encyclopedic" appears to be changing in this respect. Also note that the Hair article is about the stuff on your head, not the (arguably) more encyclopedic famous stage production and film (which are at Hair (musical) and Hair (film)).
  • Besides, it's not like Bath is a global city. If it were, that might have made it notable enough to "trump" the other uses.

Serge 03:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

  1. Support. I'm the nominator. --Serge 03:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support --Filll 06:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Thaurisil 07:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong support per nom, to Bath, Somerset. -Patstuarttalk|edits 12:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support move to Bath, Somerset as discussed below. Ambivalent at best to Bath (city). --Scott Davis Talk 14:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support move to Bath, Somerset as discussed below. Not fond of Bath (city) either, which reminds me of Bath City F.C.. —Grstain | Talk 14:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support per nom, but would prefer ScottDavis' proposal of Bath, Somerset. - Evv 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Bath, Somerset -- Strongly opppose Bath (city) -- Bath (city) is ambiguous, as there are many cities named Bath. Primary topic does not apply to subjects that are already disambiguated, otherwise you'd need Bath (city) (disambiguation). –  Anþony  talk  16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support, but would prefer move to Bath, Somerset. Voretustalk 19:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support the general idea, but much prefer the natural-sounding Bath, Somerset, to Bath (city) (and I'm a local). --MichaelMaggs 21:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support the concept. I think that Bath, Somerset is likely to be a better title. Vegaswikian 23:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support move to Bath (city). However, I strongly oppose any move to Bath, Somerset or Bath, England.--DaveOinSF 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    Daveo, do you care to explain why you oppose Bath, Somerset? --Scott Davis Talk 08:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    An article titled Bath, Somerset or Bath, England implies that the city of Bath in Somerset, England is being disambiguated from some other city named Bath not located in Somerset or in England. That is incorrect, since Bath in Somerset, England is clearly the most famous city anwhere in the world named Bath. By disambiguating as Bath (city), the title reflects the fact that the need for disambiguation arises from the city sharing its name with another article(s) about subject(s) that are not cities. Simultaneously, Bath (city) correctly implies that the city that the article is about is the most notable locale with that name.--DaveOinSF 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    An ambiguous disambiguation kind of defeats the purpose. Voretustalk 20:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    Exactly.--DaveOinSF 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support the move to Bath, Somerset, but strongly oppose Bath (city). Bath, Somerset would bring it into line with the rest of the List of places in Somerset.— Rod talk 20:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    Support the move to Bath, Somerset, per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(city_names)#United_Kingdom naming conventions. older ≠ wiser 23:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Reconsidered.
  15. Support the move on principle. "Bath" is common shorthand for both "bathing" and "bathtub", and there are numerous other places by that name. PC78 10:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

  1. Oppose - The city is really the best to stay here. -- Beardo 04:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Bathing and Bathtub have sufficiently different (and logical) names. No other place named Bath is anywhere near as notable. This is the article I'd expect to see here, not the disambig. That said, I think Bath, Somerset is preferable to Bath (city). FiggyBee 16:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. As a World Heritage Site Bath is I believe by far the most significant place with such a name, and none of the proposed alternative names are really satisfactory. I live in Bath, and I believe few residents think of themselves as in Somerset - which is considered somewhere south of Bath. Bath's most recent county was the defunct Avon (county), and is now in a unitary authority named Bath and North East Somerset, the name of which indicates that Bath is not generally viewed as part of Somerset nowadays (otherwise the unitary authority would simply have been named North East Somerset). Bath has a ceremonial Lord Mayor and Charter Trustees, so the ceremonial functions of Somerset in Bath are minimal or non-existant. Bath (city) has the failings described elsewhere. Bath, England is perhaps the best of this bad bunch. Overall leaving as is, with otheruses Bath (disambiguation) at the top, is best I think. Rwendland 13:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    added info: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Recommendations suggests consulting 3 other encyclopedias to establish a widely accepted name. Encyclopædia Britannica: Bath (city, unitary authority of Bath and North East Somerset, historic county of Somerset) [2]; Columbia Encyclopedia: Bath, city, England (mentions Bath and North East Somerset but not Somerset) [3]; Encarta: Bath (city, England) (city and administrative center of the unitary authority of Bath and North-East Somerset, southern England) [4]. This backs up oppose for Bath, Somerset, but gives some support to Bath, England. Rwendland 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose Upon further consideration, I think that Bath is pretty clearly the most well-known of the places listed and merits primary topic status. If this had been some minor village, then Bath, Somerset, would have been appropriate. But the status as a World Heritage Site (not to mention the Chaucer's The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale) and the apparently somewhat ambiguous relationship between some cities and counties in England make that problematic. Seems that unlike in the United States and some other "new" countries, where a city is unambiguously subordinate to the next level of subnational entity, that relation isn't as clear-cut when the city has over a two thousand-year history while the surrounding county configuration has changed several times in the past century alone. older ≠ wiser 04:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Having read the complete discussion below, I would prefer not to move to Bath, Somerset until the question of administrative or ceremonial county is straightened out. I have no opinion on that. It is possible that Bath and Northeast Somerset simply implies that Bath isn't NE; but let the locals figure it out. Bath is primary usage compared to everything except Bathing and Bathtub; so let's leave it here, and add them to the dab header. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per FiggyBee. Bath, Somerset does not gel with local usage, and Bath is never referred to locally as being in Somerset. If someone said a place was in Somerset, most local people would consider it to be quite far south of Bath, and for people to drive combine harvesters everywhere and speak in strong Somerset accents. Bath, England does not sound right in British English. Let's just leave it be...Pittising 21:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

If the word bath originated here, getting named after the baths in Bath because the place was called Bath first, then that would be an argument for the place being the primary topic. But the English word bath is not named after this place, but is derived from the Germanic Bad that has nothing to do with the baths in Bath. --Serge 04:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not a local, or at least to Bath, but there are many places named Bath (many more than on the current disambiguation page, I was surprised to discover), and so it might be a good idea to not call this one Bath (city), even though it is the most famous Bath apparently. I was also surprised to find out that a bath was not named after Bath, but both a bath and Bath apparently originated with the Old High German word "baed", to heat.--Filll 06:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly local to Bath (living in Bath and North East Somerset) and would support Bath, Somerset over Bath (city). The difficulties caused caused by the differences between traditional & ceremonial counties, particularly in relation to unitary authorities, is ongoing & confusing for many (including me).— Rod talk 14:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Bath (city in England)?

A title of Bath, Somerset implies that Bath, Somerset is the name that is most commonly used to refer to this city. Clearly, it is not. The most common name is Bath, period. I prefer to use standard parenthetic disambiguation than to use a differerent/less common name in the title. Is Bath (city in England) more acceptable than Bath (city)? --Serge 15:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME: "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." Disambiguators are only necessary when the only acceptable name is in unavailable. –  Anþony  talk  16:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Is Bath, Somerset a "well-accepted alternative name" for the subject? Is it even a name? --Serge 16:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well it gets a quarter of a million GHits... FiggyBee 16:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
And Bath, England gets that many GHits again: half a million. My question stands: is Bath, Somerset even a name for this city? Or is the name Bath, and Bath, Somerset is just a location-qualified reference to Bath? If it's the latter, then Bath, Somerset is not a "well-accepted alternative name" for the subject, and should not be used for the title of the article. --Serge 17:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Bath, England seems acceptable to me as well. I won't express a preference for one over the other. As for the distinction between a "name" and a "location-qualified reference", I think that's just arguing over semantics. Even if you accept that Bath, Somerset is some kind of disambiguation rather than the name per se, there's nothing wrong with that. Parenthetical disambiguation is not mandatory when another method makes more sense. –  Anþony  talk  19:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not arguing over semantics. Arguing over semantics would be arguing over whether name and "location-qualified reference" mean the same thing. The underlying issue here is: what is supposed to go into a title (regardless of what you call it), and whether Cityname, Area-City-Is-In qualifies as that (regardless of what you call it) for a city article. Another way to put it is: is adding comma-separated contextual information to the most common/simple name of an article subject in its title preferred to adding that or similar information in a parenthetic remark in the title? --Serge 20:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
When there is an well-known alternative name for a subject that is unambigous, that name is preferred over the common name with a parenthetical disambiguation. There isn't a general formula for this, as you seem to be looking for. Another example might be using middle names or initials to differentiate between people of the same name. –  Anþony  talk  22:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

primary topic and disambiguated subjects

Anþony wrote:

Primary topic does not apply to subjects that are already disambiguated, otherwise you'd need Bath (city) (disambiguation).

Are you suggesting that at the top of Bath (city) there should be a dab header to a dab page for all the other cities named Bath, but not for all other non-city subjects named bath, because the (city) dab would already have "filtered" those out, in effect? Interesting. Yes, that's quite convincing. But to me, that's an argument for Bath (city in England), Bath (Somerset), Bath (Somerset, England) or Bath (city in Somerset, England), not support for Bath, Somerset which I still think wrongly implies that Bath, Somerset is the most common name for that city, because, in that format, it is not clear that , Somerset is dab info. --Serge 20:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Serge, which of the reasons I offered for Bath, Somerset do you dispute?
  1. It is the convention for disambiguating ambiguous placenames in Somerset (see Category:Towns in Somerset)
  2. It is documented as the convention for naming places in England (see WP:NC:CITY#United_Kingdom )
  3. There are many other places that could be described as Bath (city) (see Bath (disambiguation) and Bath, Maine)[5]
At least here most people are supporting that bath may not always mean the English city to a global audience. --Scott Davis Talk 22:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing any of these facts, Scott. My argument is that the conventions reflected in the guidelines you cite should be changed for the reasons that I have provided. If the supermajority here chooses Bath, Somerset in the end, I will support it (and I'm very please there is little opposition to the move from Bath, unlike the horrible experience at Cork). In the mean time, I will try to convince anyone that I can of the problem with these conventions, and why they need to be changed (and, until they are changed, why they should be ignored). --Serge 22:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was attempting to point out how ridiculous Bath (city) is for those exact reasons. If you're going to use a disambiguator, pick something unambiguous. Bath (Somerset) or similar could solve that problem, but a disambiguator isn't needed at all when there's an acceptable alternative. –  Anþony  talk  22:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Serge, it is disruptive and against WP:POINT to be deliberately trying to get articles moved out of accordance with the accepted naming conventions just so that you can then wave those moved articles at WP:NC:CITY as an example of why you want the documented convention changed. You well know that if you want to change WP:NC:CITY#United_Kingdom it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). However you also know that talk page is already full of your attempts to change the USA part of the convention, so far to no avail. The best place to start the conversation to make sure the editors who care are involved is probably Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography with links from Wikipedia talk:English Wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. If A consensus appears there to change the current conventions, it would be appropriate to place a notice on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) and update the convention. --Scott Davis Talk 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Scott, I assure you, I am not doing this to so that [I] can wave this article at WP:NC:CITY. It never even crossed my mind. What ever gave you the idea that this might even be what this is about? At any rate, this is a much bigger issue, and I've started a discussion/survey on it at WT:NC. --Serge 01:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
What gave me the idea was your comment above that I was responding to: ...the conventions reflected in the guidelines you cite should be changed... In the mean time, I will try to convince anyone that I can of the problem with these conventions, and why they need to be changed (and, until they are changed, why they should be ignored). This suggests to me an attempt to have articles with names such as Bath (city) to show that the current documented convention is out of step with actual usage. I'm also disappointed that you felt that starting a discussion requires an attached survey, but for the moment I'll respect your request not to reveal there my previous knowledge understanding of your position in that survey. --Scott Davis Talk 05:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bath (city)

User:DaveOinSF said above: An article titled Bath, Somerset or Bath, England implies that the city of Bath in Somerset, England is being disambiguated from some other city named Bath not located in Somerset or in England ...

Dave also agreed with User:Voretus that An ambiguous disambiguation kind of defeats the purpose.

Should I interpret therefore that Dave expects the subject of Bath (city) to be the same as the subject of http://www.cityofbath.com ? --Scott Davis Talk 23:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because .com domains typically go to U.S. sites, and, so, I, for one, would expect cityofbath.com to belong to a U.S. city named Bath. Anyone can buy any domain that somebody else doesn't already own. It means little. Do you have any substantial rebuttal to Dave's argument? Because I find it to be compelling. --Serge 19:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The obvious rebuttal is "An ambiguous disambiguation kind of defeats the purpose". There are multiple cities named Bath, but only one is in Somerset, as many others have noted. --Scott Davis Talk 05:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Scott, since you are not addressing anything that Dave wrote, perhaps you did not understand his point? I don't know how to improve on it, so I can only repeat it:
By disambiguating as Bath (city), the title reflects the fact that the need for disambiguation arises from the city sharing its name with another article(s) about subject(s) that are not cities. Simultaneously, Bath (city) correctly implies that the city that the article is about is the most notable locale with that name.
In other words, you seem to be arguing that, in general, Name (city) implies that Name is the only city with that name, while Dave is arguing that it implies that Name is the only city that is the primary city topic use of that name. Note that the article title Name (alone - no dabbing) does not necessarily imply that Name is the only use of that name, just that the given subject is the primary topic use of Name. Similarly, Name (city) implies that the given subject is the primary city topic use of that name. If it is "ambiguous disambiguation", then it is ambiguous only to the same degree that using Name is ambiguous as a primary topic when there are other uses; it's standard accepted usage in Wikipedia. --Serge 16:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I understood that, and believe that if it's worth the effort to fix about 1300 links to Bath so that it would be OK to move Bath (disambiguation) there, we might as well do it so that they won't need doing again when Bath, Maine (or any other) has a growth spurt and becomes the best-known city by that name. I expect that Bath (city) means the one in Maine for most people who live in New England or the Maritimes, perhaps to distinguish it from the villages of Bath, New Brunswick and Bath, New Hampshire. --Scott Davis Talk 01:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, however bad the situation may be for this article to be at Bath (city) with respect to future potential issues with other cities named Bath getting more prominent, it can be no worse than for it to stay at Bath (assuming the only conflicts were with cities). And, if there were no non-city conflicts, then this article would unquestionably stay at Bath, would it not? So how bad can this be? Not bad at all, I say. Practically speaking, the odds of some other city named Bath becoming sufficiently prominent to warrant another change is extremely unlikely in our lifetimes. If this is the crux of the argument against using Bath (city), it's pretty anemic. Our great grandchildren can fix Bath (city), should it ever need fixing... Speaking of odds, by that measure, Bath, Somerset is much more likely to need a change, given the way counties seem to come and go in that part of the world... The locals can't even seem to agree whether Bath is in Somerset even now. Like Cork (city), and unlike Cork, County Cork and Bath, Somerset, Bath (city) is very likely to be an appropriate and stable title for a very long time. --Serge 05:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I leave it to someone else not so far involved in the conversation to adjudicate on whether a consensus exists for either move (I still believe there's consensus for Bath, Somerset).
The ceremonial counties of England appear to be stable, despite relatively recent shuffling of the administrative counties. There is also the advantage that if Bath, Somerset were to need to be moved to Bath, Avon for example, a redirect can remain, so the links do not require a mass update as will be required by a change of meaning of [[Bath]] from a city to a dab page, or a later change of meaning if Bath (city). --Scott Davis Talk 14:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
There are a few statements of preference of Bath, Somerset over Bath (city), but very few statements of opposition to it. Support votes that do not specify a preference must be assumed to be Bath (city), as that is what this RM is about. But all that is beside the point here: which is what are the arguments for each, and which is stronger, and why. Again, the likelihood that some other city named Bath will somehow gain enough prominence to knock out its namesake as unquestionably being the primary topic in this domain (cities) is vanishingly tiny. --Serge 16:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-move discussion

I must say that I think this decision to move to Bath, Somerset was premature, and without a majority or final discussion; my count is that only 9 of the 20 votes favoured Bath, Somerset. This proposal was for Bath (city), surely proper procedure would have been to call another vote for Bath, Somerset - after all the discussion such a second voting round would have been better informed. My count of the 20 votes is Bath (city): 5 (votes 1,2,3,4,13), Bath, Somerset: 9 (votes 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14), Move in general - assume Bath(city): 1 (vote 15), oppose move: 5. Rwendland 13:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Ooops, I missed the late 6th oppose vote out - result essentially the same, but the detail should have been: My count of the 21 votes is Bath (city): 5 (votes 1,2,3,4,13), Bath, Somerset: 9 (votes 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14), Move in general - assume Bath(city): 1 (vote 15), oppose move: 6. Rwendland 22:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Acknowledged. However, it really depends how you look at it: as I explained in the closing note, there's a consensus for move, but there isn't really a consensus where. That leaves us with two options: relist the RM until the end of the Universe, or move the article somewhere, fix the incoming links (~300 by myself, down to 999 to be fixed, thanks) and maybe decide later whether to move it to Bath (city). All options are ugly and unsatisfactory. Heck, having wasted an hour and a half with AWB, I wonder should I have voted oppose, and let someone else close this RM because of my "conflict of interest". Duja► 13:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
A support vote for the move that expresses mere preference for an alternate name, but not opposition to the proposed name, should count as support for the proposed name. Counting in this manner I get out of the 20 votes:
  • Support RM of Bath -> Bath (city): 13 (votes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,15)
  • Prefer Bath, Somerset: 9 (votes 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14)
  • Support only Bath, Somerset and oppose Bath (city): 2 (votes 9, 14)
  • Support only Bath (city) and oppose Bath, Somerset: 2 (votes 1, 13)
  • oppose move: 5
Can someone (Duja?) explain to me how the preference of a clear minority (9 out of 20 for Bath, Somerset) trumps a choice supported by a substantial majority (13 out of 20 support Bath (city))? Thanks. --Serge 16:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Really innovative way of counting Serge. How come you count votes 5-12 (and possibly few more) into "support for Bath (city)" when they clearly indicated the preference for Bath, Somerset (along with oppose #2, let alone Bkonrad's scratched vote)? I'm not particularly happy with the outcome either, but reading the votes and the discussion, it was clear that the naming convention and general feeling leans toward "Bath, Somerset" far more than towards "Bath (city)". I dare not call it a "consensus" either, but it seemed to be the least unnaceptable choice. Duja► 16:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Serge, your mode of counting is entirely unfair. Those who expressed a preference for Bath, Somerset, could reasonably be expected to vote for that if a straight choice were to be provided between Bath, Somerset and Bath (city). My vote (number 11) was for Bath, Somerset. It was placed in the 'Support' section as others had already effectively used that section to urge a move to somewhere other than that suggested in the specific proposal. If you think it would be useful, we could call another vote and ask users explictly to vote between the two options, but WP:SNOW seems to apply. --MichaelMaggs 16:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Michael, I counted your vote as one of 9 out of 20 that preferred Bath, Somerset to Bath (city), but isn't it fair to also count it as one of 13 out of 20 that supported the move of Bath to Bath (city)? After all, you voted Support in the survey for that specific move, didn't you? And, unlike two others who did make a qualification of actually opposing Bath (city), you did not say you would only support the move if it was to Bath, Somerset. How is this "entirely unfair"? --Serge 17:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Duja, there is nothing innovative about it. I think it's common sense. I counted "votes 5-12 (and possibly few more)" into "support for Bath (city)" because they were votes that indicated Support for the RM of Bath -> Bath (city). The fact that in their comments they also mentioned a preference for an alternate name is immaterial to that fact. Suppose each one expressed a preference for a unique name - would you count those as one vote for each unique alternative name and not as a vote in support of the move to the proposed name? That would be clearly absurd. In this case it's a bit confusing because they all happened to choose the same alternate, but the fundamental vote in support of the original RM should remain. There were only two "support" votes that expressed actual opposition to Bath (city). All the others should count as support votes for the move to Bath (city), because that's what this survey was about, and they voted Support. If they didn't support Bath (city), they would have voted oppose, or indicated their opposition in their comment, as (only) two of them did.
Another way to look at it: for 11 out of 20, there is no evidence of any support for Bath, Somerset. For only 7 out of 20 there is no evidence of any support Bath (city). I understand that Bath, Somerset seemed to be the least unacceptable choice, but to reach this conclusion you miscounted mere preferences for Bath, Somerset as votes of Bath (city) being unacceptable. I don't understand why. Logically, with 13 out of 20 expressing at least some support for Bath (city), and only 9 out of 20 expressing some support for Bath, Somerset, Bath (city) is clearly the least unacceptable choice, if not clearly the most favored choice. As the nominator, I'm biased of course, but I submit this logic should withstand any objective scrutiny. Thanks. --Serge 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
My take on this is that the voting got so messy we should conclude no more than there was a majority for a move and no support for Bath, England, and it would have been best to have had a second vote of some form after the Xmas break - maybe simple Bath (city) v. Bath, Somerset so those that opposed could give preference. I suspect Bath, Somerset would have won, so I'm content to accept what has been done; but if someone feels very strongly they should organise another vote. Rwendland 18:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It is common practice in such RM surveys for participants to mention a preference of an alternative name when voting in support of a given move. This practice does not constitute making anything "messy". I strongly object to any crystal ball conjectures about "beliefs" that such-and-such "would have won" had this-or-that had happened, and the move made based upon such unsubstantiated claims. Now, I do believe that the initial move was made in good faith. But now that the counting error has been revealed, it should be done the other way. --Serge 18:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The flaw in your method is that it counts me and several others as voting equally for the two options (you have us down as effectively voting once for both). That's how your result comes out as "entirely unfair". --MichaelMaggs 18:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This survey was about a specific move of Bath to Bath (city). 13 out of 20 (a clear majority), including you, voted in Support of that specific move. That's what was counted. The fact that 9 (a minority) of you also preferred Bath, Somerset to Bath (city) is a separate matter. Trying to compare and weigh these votes with respect to each other on these distinct matters is what would be entirely unfair, for there would no objective or even reasonably subjective way to do it. I admire Duja's effort, but I think he missed the fundamental majority support (however reluctant it may be) for the move to Bath (city). A reluctant majority should still trump the strong minority, no? --Serge 19:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What a stupid move. I think this decision should be reviewed and link substitution should be halted. I would have voted to keep the page where it was. Jooler 20:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Serge, my vote (6) of Support move to Bath, Somerset as discussed below. Ambivalent at best to Bath (city) cannot be counted as support for Bath (city), and I doubt Grstain (7) would want to be either. If you didn't want us to represent our preferences the way we did, you should have either (a) initiated a discussion before or instead of a poll, or (b) included the name preferred by the current naming conventions as an option. --Scott Davis Talk 03:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Scott, I suggest that when you vote in a survey in support of a proposed move from A to B, you should not be surprised to find your vote counted as one in support of, well, a move from A to B. We can't read your mind. How is one to know that "ambivalent at best" means opposed? If you did not support the proposed move to Bath (city), then you should not have voted in support of it, or at least make it clear in your comment that you were opposed to it. Even if we don't count your vote, that's still 12 vs. the minority of 9 that expressed a preference for Somerset.
Anyway, it doesn't matter much to me whether it's at (city) or Somerset; the main thing is that it not be at Bath. I just think having a minority preference trump a choice supported by a majority sets a bad precedent. What goes around comes around, especially in Wikipedia. It's your karma... --Serge 05:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
10 people expressed a preference for Bath, Somerset over Bath (city). (You missed Filll's later comment that "it might be a good idea to not call this one Bath (city)".) Only two people expressed a preference the other way around. Even if you grant the three nonspecific support votes, it's still 10 to 5. Several of the oppose votes also expressed a preference for Bath, Somerset or an opposition to Bath (city). This isn't that hard. –  Anþony  talk  07:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Ambivalent at best clearly meant I was undecided between neutral and opposed, so should have been either not counted or counted as opposed to Bath (city), definitely not in favour. Anyway, it doesn't really matter now with only about 600 total links remaining to Bath, less than 400 from articles. I intend not to respond here further, but to continue fixing links so the disambig page can be moved too. --Scott Davis Talk 07:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a new separate RM of Bath, Somerset to Bath (city), just to be clear there is consensus support for this. --Serge 04:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Bath "in Somerset"?

I thought I'd be spending the day with AWB changing links form Bath to Bath, Somerset (and a few to Bathing, Bathtub or Bath, Maine). That plan feels somewhat delayed by Rwendland's comments about the proposed move above. In particular, the comments that most residents consider that Somerset is somewhere south of Bath, and that the naming of Bath and North East Somerset suggests Bath is not part of Somerset. The article is presently in Category:Towns in Somerset, the infobox says that both the ceremonial and historic counties are Somerset, and it is listed in List of places in Somerset. So is naming the article Bath, Somerset accurate in the sense of the naming convention? Do some of these other things need to be changed too? --Scott Davis Talk 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion over at Talk:Cork (city) about whether the city Cork was in County Cork. I never got a satisfactory answer, but many locals seemed to feel strongly that it's important to not imply that Cork is in the county. At any rate, that was a key factor in determining why we went with Cork (city) rather than Cork, County Cork, and why I suggested Bath (city) here. --Serge 03:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the issue is subtly different here, and it may be that neither Americans nor Australians will properly understand it. It appears that Bath used to be in Somerset, but may no longer be, although there are many references that appear to suggest that it is. We need to wait until the English people can confirm whether the name Bath, Somerset would be incorrect as it turned out that Cork, County Cork would have been. If Bath is not in Somerset, then the category hierarchy, parts of several articles, and a number of lists both here and at Commons are wrong, too. --Scott Davis Talk 05:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's pretty complicated. Bath used to be in the old county of Somerset, but in 1972 it was moved into a new county called Avon. That was not a success, and in 1996 the county of Avon was abolished. Now, Bath is back in Somerset again, and mail is, for example, often addressed to "Bath, Somerset". Unfortunately, the county of Somerset is not the same as the local government body which controls Bath: the local authority as it's known here is a different entity called Bath and North East Somerset. 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.--MichaelMaggs 19:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with the above & if Bath is not in Somerset because it is in a unitary authority, all the towns and villlages listed on List of civil parishes in Somerset as being in Bath and North East Somerset or North Somerset are not in Somerset either - which is plainly ridiculous. Those not familiar with the local history & boundary changes may wish to look at Avon (county) and Somerset (which includes Bath & lots of Bath places of interest etc). The "late modern" section of the History of Somerset contains some further explanation. Having looked at all of these & some other sources I am increasingly convinced that Bath, Somerset is the correct title if it has to be something other than Bath.— Rod talk 19:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems I've stirred things up, sorry I've been away today so haven't responded earlier. Bath is not in the Shire county (non-metropolitan county) of Somerset (i.e. for the purposes of local government), but is in the Ceremonial county of Somerset (though for Bath with a Lord Mayor this is of little importance). So Bath, Somerset would not actually be wrong, but I am asserting it is not something locals (or many others) would much use. In a postal address locals would normally use Bath and a postcode alone (the post office recommendation for Bath since 1974), or maybe Bath and North East Somerset, though Somerset (or Avon) would not confuse postal delivery and perhaps the older generation still use this. Sorry this is so confusing, but reflects the fact that the Administrative divisions of England are not uniform, and for Bath has been changed twice since 1972. AFAICT few Bath residents have a sense of belonging to Somerset, and even before 1972 Bath was a County borough since 1889 independent of Somerset county council control, rather than the county-town. 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 ... it is not useful to state that "Luton is a town in the county of Luton".' Really this is all rather a mess, and hard to see a good way forward - hence my preference with sticking to the current situation if at all possible. Rwendland 01:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
That is say, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Counties of Britain didn't agree on whether to use administrative or ceremonial counties. I'm not sure Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is intended to address questions like this; why don't you ask on their talk page? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
At the other end of southern England there's been similar issues over Medway, a unitary authority area in Kent. The articles don't shy from saying that Medway and its towns are "in Kent" (indeed Medway includes both the North Kent Marshes and the Medway campus of the University of Kent). Saying Bath is "in Somerset" is in line with the part of the guidelines that say 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 ... which I recall is a broad compromise on the administrative vs ceremonial issue and accepting that some unitary authority names are either not useful for disambiguation or too unwieldy. Timrollpickering 23:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What is "Bath Spa"?

While examining some of the links to Bath, I noticed that several are piped as Bath Spa, such as the home of Bath City F.C. and Team Bath F.C.. The main railway station is Bath Spa railway station, and one of the universities is Bath Spa University. Is "Bath Spa" a more formal or historic name for what is now commonly known as "Bath", or is it either larger or smaller? --Scott Davis Talk 05:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Bath Spa refers to the spa itself (the hot baths) and more recently is used in conjunction with the railway station, a University and various sporting clubs. The city of Bath itself is never referred to as Bath Spa. Bath Spa is a dab page, and references should point there. The pipes ought to be removed. --MichaelMaggs 08:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
So should they point to the DAB page for someone else to sort out, or should "...the city of Bath Spa, Somerset" [6], [7] become "...the city of Bath, Somerset", or "the city of Bath, Bath and North East Somerset"? (note all examples have piped links) --Scott Davis Talk 11:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see the problem. In the two examples you've listed, the links should be to Bath, Somerset. I've made the corrections. Do you know of any more like that? --MichaelMaggs 18:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Do not move. Sorry, Duja - you got the hard one and I got the easy one. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 2

Bath, Somerset → Bath (city) — Bath is not known as Bath, Somerset. This Bath is the principal city with this name. Previous RM to Bath (city) was supported by a majority, but an admin moved it to a preference supported by a minority. Serge 22:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

  • Support, sort of: Of these two options, Bath (city) is the best, because of the vagueness involved in whether Bath really is in Somerset or not, and because it's the primary topic for cities named Bath. Note that the apparent consensus above was that the city was not the primary topic for Bath, but it is surely the primary city named Bath. That said, I'm increasingly of the opinion that having the city at Bath was a better solution than either Bath (city) or Bath, Somerset — the other primary meanings are covered at the distinct words bathtub and bathing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Josiah, I'm surprised to see you repeat this argument. Apparently I wasn't too convincing in the Lost debate, but I'll reiterate for those here: the primary topic provision only applies to the "main article" -- without disambiguation -- and does not apply to articles which already require disambiguation. The purpose of primary topics is to assist users when they search for an ambiguous term. Since no one is actually going to search for "Bath (city)", we're not helping anyone by using an ambiguous title. –  Anþony  talk  12:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

  • Oppose. I'm afraid to say that Serge arrives at his interesting conclusion only by creatively counting the votes in the Requested Move, above. (Note that he counts all users who said they prefer "Bath, Somerset" as voting equally for that and for "Bath (city)"). The closure was prefectly sound, and correctly implements the majority view. I regret that Serge so dislikes the result of his own poll that he feels the need to run it all over again only a few days later. --MichaelMaggs 22:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as an Oppose voter above, my first choice, and what I argued for, was Bath, as against Bath, Somerset. But I find Bath, Somerset - which, at worst, is a trifle dated, but has unquestionably been usage - far preferable to Bath (city). If Bath is ambiguous, the page name should at least indicate which Bath we mean. (I also see clear consensus, and yield to it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Bath (city) is improper as ambiguous disambiguation. The previous poll showed a clear preference for Bath, Somerset over Bath (city). Serge might recall a similar case of a supposedly flawed poll over a trivial naming issue and learn some lessons from it. From WP:DDV: "If a straw poll was called on an issue recently, there is usually no reason to call a second poll, even if you think that consensus may have changed or that the first poll was conducted unfairly." –  Anþony  talk  23:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

I'm not sure. Possibly revert actually back to Bath. We might end up with Bath (Bathtub). Simply south 22:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on; Bath (tub), surely. ;-> If reversion is consensus, I wouldn't mind. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Er.. Bath is not in Somerset!! [8]. So "Bath, Somerset" is as silly as London, Middlesex. It has been independent of Somerset Council since 1889 and was in the county of Avon for some period of time from 1974. As a World Heritage site and with the overwhleming majority of links on Wikipedia pointing to Bath meaning the City - the original location at Bath was and still is correct. This move is but another fudge. Jooler

There seems to be concensus that ceremonial counties should be used, as they're more stable and better known. Hence "Somerset" is correct.
Where is this so-called consensus for creating a page name that is factually incorrect? Jooler 23:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest Bath, England as as an alternate title, but I fear someone would object on the grounds that it's somehow "really" in France, or that some reader might assume it was an article about a campaign to get Englanders to bathe more often. - BillCJ 21:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
A better example would be Berwick on Tweed, Berwickshire or Berwick, Berwickshire. If you are confused (and you should be) see Berwick on Tweed and Berwickshire (named after a city in the county that isn't in the same country let alone county) Jooler 23:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
While Bath, Somerset may not be the "right" title, it's at least unambiguous, unlike Bath (city). There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on what that "right" title is, but most here seem willing to accept Bath, Somerset as an adequate title. I think we should just drop the issue for now. –  Anþony  talk  22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not just "not right" - it's wholly wrong. Surely notability trumps ambiguity. Even after the bot assisted changing of links from Bath to Bath, Somerset, the vast majority of links to bath still mean the city in England. Jooler 23:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The editors here have decided that this city is not the primary topic for Bath -- so no, notability does not trump ambiguity. The poll was concluded less than a week ago. If such concerns weren't convincing then, they aren't going to have much affect now. –  Anþony  talk  00:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Not a majority. And I didn't know there was a vote on. Notability trumps ambiguity on plenty of pages. Wikipedia:Primary topic disambiguation Jooler 03:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Try ""Bath, Wiltshire" - The comma is generally ignored in searches. Jooler 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Only about one-tenth the hits, but I think still supports my overriding point that "[city], {some geopolitical entity}" is NOT an 'uncommon construct in the UK', as I understood Serge to be claiming it to be. Niteowlneils 03:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Or better yet "Bath, Avon" which gets 900,000 hits five times more than Somerset. Itis an uncommon construct. No-one but no-one would ever say "I'm going to 'Bath, Somerset' for the weekend" Jooler 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. I just oppose Bath (city). Bath, Avon, Bath, England, or Bath, United Kingdom would also all be fine by me (whichever is most accurate and _not ambiguous at all_ -- given the historical issues that Avon vs. Somerset apparently raises, I guess my first choice would be Bath, England). It wouldn't even bother me too much if the city took over the location at just Bath, but there doesn't seem to be sufficient consensus for that. It is apparently a common written construct, and there's plenty of articles on WP titled in ways more often written than referred to in casual speech. Niteowlneils 04:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Look at the top of this page. There was a consensus not to move the page from 'Bath' back then. A sizable minority wanted to retain it at Bath in the recent vote. It is just plain stupid to have the page at Bath, Somerset when it's not even in bloody Somerset . The vote was completely flawed nand the arguments against the current name werenot properly put forward. Having the page at 'Bath, Somerset' is like having a page titled Washington D.C. , Maryland (364,000 Google hits for "Wasginton D.C, Maryland") Jooler 04:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I am SO not trying to advocate for Bath, Somerset. To summarize, while I think there is a strong argument for the UK city to be at Bath, barring that, I think Bath, England is the best alternative of all the disambiguated titles suggested to date. Cork (city) only works because there apparently are no other cities named Cork. I very much doubt (and seriously hope not) that any precedent could be found for using just (city) to disambiguate any city where other cities share the name. Niteowlneils 04:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
So does that mean that Bath, Europe and Bath, Earth are to ambiguous? Aw shucks, that means I probably have no chance for my favorite, Bath, Sol System :( - BillCJ 04:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
According to Bath (disambiguation) there's one in the Netherlands, and several in North America, so, yes. Niteowlneils 04:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
To User:Jooler; if this sity is in the ceremonial county of Somerset, the name is correct. If it isn't, please let us know. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

How about moving to Bath Spa? Simply south 13:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Responding to various comments above in no particular order:

  1. WP:AWB is not a bot, it's just a software tool to assist human editors to make repetitive edits. I did about 500 of them before taking a break for Christmas.
  2. If "Bath is not in Somerset", there are a lot of Wikipedia articles that need to be corrected - perhaps a quarter of the ones I changed to [[Bath, Somerset|Bath]] were immediately followed by ", Somerset". Then theres the categories and lists too.
  3. About 2% of the links to Bath did not mean the city. Generally either bathing, one of the variants on that, or Bath Abbey.
  4. (new thought)If there is an article about the cricket ground in Bath, it should be added to Bath (disambiguation) and have someone search for Bath and cricket to fix a lot of articles about cricketers who have played there. Maybe as much as 8-10% of the links (I didn't try to count those, as I took a while to realise it might be significant).
  5. I don't think the city is ever referred to as "Bath Spa". I have found only the two links referred to somewhere about about the football clubs using that name.

--Scott Davis Talk 13:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Bath, England seems to be the most common, reasonable choice here. —Centrx→talk • 21:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Common

Just done a search as i thought that might be a solution. However, the most common refers actually to a bath (as in bathtub) ranging between 1 million and 11 million or more results, city of Bath had 308,000 and bathing had another million or so. Not looking good. :( Simply south 17:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Currently there are issues over the location of the city article, most common usage for the article name and also the disambiguation page. This has gone through 2 RMs and there is a lot of surrounding discussion. 01:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simply south (talk • contribs)

The current status is that there are still just over 200 links from articles to Bath, plus links from user, talk etc pages that are presumed to refer to the English city. These need to all be changed to link directly to Bath, Somerset (or fixed to link elsewhere), then the current Bath (disambiguation) can be moved to Bath as per the RM in December. The consensus appears to be that Bath is in the ceremonial county of Somerset, regardless of any administrative tomfoolery. This is consistent with several hundred Wikipedia articles (text or semantics, not just that the link points to Bath, Somerset) as well as the other web pages many people have cited or counted above. --Scott Davis Talk 05:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Update: I think just about all articles, categories, templates and user pages have been dabbed appropriately (by other people as well as me). Various kinds of talk pages are much harder to determine whether it should be changed or not. I'm changing a few, but leaving most as they were. I expect to be ready to move the dab page to Bath within 24 hours. --Scott Davis Talk 13:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well done! That must have been a lot of work! --MichaelMaggs 17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
In six months time there will be just as many links to move yet again, currently I count 2 pages in the main namespace pointing to Bath meaninbg the city, by next week there may well be a dozen and it will prove that the page should be at Bath as a primary topic disambiguation. Jooler 20:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It has been a fair job - even using AWB I've learned a bit about a city I knew very little about. I hope to visit someday as some of my ancestors came from Somerset (I don't know what part). If there's a Bath Cricket Ground article or similar, a number of cricketer articles should probably link to that instead of the city.
There will always be a few articles linked to disambig pages, but they're easy to fix as they come along, and many editors will check and notice for themselves anyway. The few remaining mainspace articles will get caught today - my AWB settings initially missed articles that already used piped links, and I didn't realise it. --Scott Davis Talk 01:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Completed, and moved the disambig page to Bath. --Scott Davis Talk 08:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well we are two months on and there are approximately 200 links meant for this page actually pointing at Bath. So my point is proven. Jooler 22:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone else must have corrected some of them. I've fixed the last 32 articles (not talk or Wikipedia namespaces) linked directly to Bath today. Of these:
The fact that nearly one third of the links I found to Bath do not refer to the city in Somerset proves the case for moving that article out of the default place to me. However you claim there were over 200 links that should have been to the city two days ago, so we only have the quantum of 10 that were not about the city today, with no indication of the actual proportion two days ago. I notice you chose to complain, but not to fix them. --Scott Davis Talk 13:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I was not complaining about the links being wrong. In my opinion the links were right, it's the location of this page that is wrong, to fix them would be pointless if the page was moved back. Jooler 18:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
also in the 5 hours since you elminated links meant for this page two more (Roland Orzabal, Melksham) , have already appeared. Bath is the natural site for this page. Jooler 18:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Famous Bathonians

Is this now long enough to be split to its own article? Maybe List of notable Bathonians or similar? Foxhill 13:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that. —Grstain | Talk 13:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree also. --MichaelMaggs 15:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I have split the section out as of now to the newly created List of notable Bathonians article Foxhill 20:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

climate

i'm no expert but there seem to be two errors in the climate section. firstly the ocean current which brings warm water to northern europe is the north atlantic drift and not the gulf stream (the gulf stream only goes as far as canada). secondly you mention that the dominant wind directions are south westerlies caused by the north atlantic drift cuurent (or thats what the link takes you two) when as far as i know its caused by the two permanent (well relatively) air masses which sit over the north and mid atlantic (high pressure over mid atlantic and low over north atlantic). these cause cyclogenisis which creates these south westerly winds —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.72.81.84 (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Bath

This article is great, good work everyone! Bath is an amazing place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LostCity42 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Maps

Bath is apparently on the requested maps page. There is a creative-commons map of Bath at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.38417536260512&lon=-2.364728055616425&zoom=14&layers=B0F that you could use. Also details of how map was created. 87.194.198.122 18:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Media numbers do not 'add up'

In the Media section it's claimed that the total weekly 'sales' of the two newspapers is 178,000 (178k) – but then quotes 15k for the Chronicle and 30k for the Times. Something must be wrong ... quota 12:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the 178k was from when the Chronic came out six days per week, and also includes the circulation for the Bath Newspapers owned Somerset Guardian Standard, and West Wiltshire Advertiser. Custardninja 13:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bath,_Somerset/Archive_1&oldid=1136551496"