Talk:History of Southampton
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Sections
editThe sections in this wiki entry aren't big enough to warrant being sections - The headings are often longer than the actual information, and the list of contents in stupidly long as a result. This needs a LOT of work. 207.138.98.253 (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, needs a lot of work. I've added a few bits recently, still more to do which will flesh out the sections which I agree are a bit short at the moment. But it takes time to build up Wiki pages. The book I'm referring to at the moment is 200 pages long. Southampton has a LOT of History. It would help if people would stop criticising and start writing.......Hethurs (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Congratulations on the hard work you are putting in. One quibble - rather than countless (80+?) references to the Rance book under one reference, would it not be better to give the separate pages for each reference. I have the book myself, and it would be great to be able to see where your references are in the book. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Now that's a fair point. I've not been entirely happy with the citations myself and have wondered if there's a better way of doing them. I'll endeavour to start putting the page numbers in and see how that works. Thanks for your commentHethurs (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC).
- Congratulations on the hard work you are putting in. One quibble - rather than countless (80+?) references to the Rance book under one reference, would it not be better to give the separate pages for each reference. I have the book myself, and it would be great to be able to see where your references are in the book. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Current state of development
editWell the book I've been referring to is about to go back to the library for a while, so probably not too many more major additions from me at this time. There's still a quite a lot more that could be added to this page on Southamptons History, but I need to put it to one side for a while, giving the page a chance to settle and be assessed if anybody wants to initiate that. I've been concentrating on the structure of this page, using "see also" where I know that the history is documented in other articles: there's no need to repeat it all here. Generally, I've been trying to cover the whole history of Southampton in an Encyclopedia-like way, not just the well-known bits that everybody knows from the Tourist guides. I've no idea what the consensus is on how successful this exercise has been, but I think that this page is now sufficiently different from the History section in the main page on Southampton for it to be a lot more obvious where to put any new information - eliminating the problem that first got me started on this series of revisions. I suggest that the fullest detail should go in this separate History page, whilst we actively restrict any new material in the main page on Southampton to a fairly brief overview, if it is of sufficient importance; it might not need to go in the main article at all. I'll obviously keep an eye on these pages via my watchlist. Do message me if any questions, I might not be contributing so much for a while, but that doesn't mean I don't care or that I'm not interested.Hethurs (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC).
Book references
editIn the article, there are several references cited to books without page numbers, especially the books by Brown, Robertson & Oppitz and Petch, and still a few from the Rance book. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Does anyone else think there are too many references to a small number of books? --Northernhenge (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree: paragraphs such as "The Polygon" are sourced entirely from one page in the Rance book, so one reference would cover the entire paragraph/section. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Southampton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091202023423/http://www.southernlife.org.uk/sotonch1.htm to http://www.southernlife.org.uk/sotonch1.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120712182921/http://www.southampton.gov.uk/s-leisure/artsheritage/museums-galleries/ghtower-museumofarchaeology/ to http://www.southampton.gov.uk/s-leisure/artsheritage/museums-galleries/ghtower-museumofarchaeology/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of Southampton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080929033954/http://southamptonuk.ags.myareaguide.com/?cityguide=tours to http://southamptonuk.ags.myareaguide.com/?cityguide=tours
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120223124133/http://www.southampton.gov.uk/s-leisure/artsheritage/museums-galleries/tudorhouse.aspx to http://www.southampton.gov.uk/s-leisure/artsheritage/museums-galleries/tudorhouse.aspx
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070402021224/http://millais.solent.ac.uk/ to http://millais.solent.ac.uk/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114021310/http://www.southampton.gov.uk/leisure/localhistoryandheritage/museums-galleries/ghtower-museumofarchaeology/ to http://www.southampton.gov.uk/leisure/localhistoryandheritage/museums-galleries/ghtower-museumofarchaeology
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Pre-Clausentium
editIt is not made clear when this location was first recognised as a potential major port. Valetude (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Air raids
editI've put a citation needed template up for the claim that German bomber pilots were ordered to avoid St Michel's church spire as they used it as a navigational aid. Two reasons, firstly it wouldn't have been that visible at night when most of the raids were carried out, and secondly, bomb aiming was a very imprecise science even with the radio aids carried by Luftwaffe aircraft later in the war (Knickebein). A lot of the damage done to Southampton was a result of mis-aimed bombs meant for the docks.
One version I have heard is that the German pilots used the White House at St Mary's School in Bitterne as a navigational point so anti-aircraft guns were sited around the building. The latter is confirmed by archeological digs. Can't find a published reference to it though. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)