Jump to content

Talk:Hampshire/Archive 1

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

Current Talk

As a lifetime Hampshire and Southampton resident I find it very odd indeed that there is such a prominent 'United States' section in the Hampshire page. Surely these details should be on the New Hampshire page as a historical entry. There is no, prominent or not, 'United Kingdom' section on the New Hampshire page and neither should there be. Many many areas of Europe offered up peoples for the New World. Should all their entries have 'United States' sections? Shouldn't these side issues (to the areas concerned) be covered on pages about New World emmigration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.28.7 (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Is now only a 2 sentance link within the history section Ms998 (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr Cairns

Can you not add a commercial link to Wikipedia ? - I am refering to link added to the Hampshire section - for iHampshire, which is a directory of businesses, services and clubs in Hampshire and only in hampshire - I feel this is of relevancy to this section. However you continue to remove it - I have briefly looked through the guidelines and it seems that commercial links are allowed.

I look forward to your comments.

Max

Thanks for your comment. I find that the Hampshire article does not discuss businesses nor commerce in Hampshire. Therefore, a commercial link to a directory of businesses in Hampshire is inappropriate. If you were to create an article 'Hampshire businesses' linked in the 'See also' section from the Hampshire article, and place the iHampshire weblink in this new article, then I for one would have no problem. Clearly, Wikipedia has commercial articles on Google, Boeing, etc. The issue is whether to place a commercial link in a non-commercial article. Ian Cairns 00:02, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

hello- I belive differently on Hampshires history being of prodominately saxon decent. [[1]] please read this, and please look at this map. [[2]]

Also DNA experts Brian Skyes and Steven Ophenhiumer are both in agreement with one another that the English hold no more than 20% Germanic blood, so you can't argue with science aye.

I would love to see Hampshire's history alongside many other English counties acknowledge thier celtic roots and bloodline. much love from Wales, Leah xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.111.162.88 (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

The todo list is looking very nice a short now. I'm considering going into Dorchester library sometime and reviewing the relevant bits against some books. Does anybody have any more to give before we try for featured article, and is it worth putting it through peer review before FAC? Joe D (t) 23:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd check out the physical geography (some of it's not quite accurate) and organise demarcation between that and Geology of Hampshire, which I just edited. "Hampshire Basin" is the key term. See Solent too; while erosion has played a part in widening the Solent and finally separating the IOW, rias are sea level rise features. Tearlach 5 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)
Much of the physical geography section (at least, the geology and landscape bits) is a summary of the geology of Hampshire article. I've added sea level change (though obviously erosion acted before sea level change to create the valleys that flooded--but that's probabaly a bit too much depth for this page) and the term "Hampshire Basin", but other more in-depth additions should go on Geology of Hampshire. Joe D (t) 5 July 2005 11:21 (UTC)

Can we have a reference to the fact that Isambard Kingdom Brunel was born in Hampshire (Portsmouth). As for the arguement over Southamptonshire, my Birth Certificate (Born Allbrook) shows I was born in 'The County of Southampton' in 1951. However my wife's father was re-married in Portsmouth in 1951/2 and on his marriage certificate it shows 'part of the administrative County of Hampshire'. The original 'Spitfire bridge' (Winchester) had a plaque saying it was opened in 1930('s) and referred to County of Southampton. Sorry if this confuses the debate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.38.188 (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a bit on Brunel, but we have to be careful with this kind of thing - Hampshire is a big and history-rich county and has spawned a vast number of notable people, and we don't want to list each and every one in the article. Re the Southamptonshire thing, I think we have sufficient references to justify the current text. waggers (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


The History of Hampshire RE: Some scholars believe there is evidence to show the traditional county boundaries of Hampshire may date back to the years of the original West Saxon settlement in circa 519. It is likely that both Winchester and Silchester would have fallen to the West Saxons between the years 508 and 514. A later thrust up the Hampshire Avon towards Old Sarum in 519 appears to have been checked by the Britons at Charford. The historian Albany Major in Early Wars of Wessex makes the case that the borders of the traditional county of Hampshire probably match those of the first West Saxon kingdom established by Cerdic and his son. This statment requires some clarification, As most of it can be disproven in relationship with the Saxons. The borders of Hampshire probable have not altered significantly. And the use of using a Roman road as a teratorial boundery was not uncommon ( i.e. The Danelaw's use of th Fossy way much later ). The problem with this statment is that to my knoledge no battles have been proven to have been thought in Hampshire between the Saxons and Brittons, those sites mentioned in the Anglo Saxon Chronical were written much later with the intention of pushing the West Saxon Reginal list back much further and have no proven place names in Hampshire. Additionaly recent excavations at Silchester have shown continued occupation of the site into the late 5th early 6th century, with no evedence of a violent end. This evedence coupled with the post Roman fortifications at Silchester ( Grims Bank - which runs into what in now AWE Aldermaston)which face north and the skulls found outside the northgate as if they had been displayed, lead to the conclusion that the threat was coming from the north possible along the Thames valley. It is also worth mentioning that Cerdic ( The founder of the West Saxon dynesty ) is infact a British name (Welsh: caradog) and not Saxon in any form which at least proves a basic degree of cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.245.97 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

County town

It's Winchester according to the majority of sources. Owain's citation for Southampton comes from an 1815 gazetteer. However, if you look at modern official sources, there's repeated confirmation it's Winchester. for example:

  • www.cityofwinchester.co.uk "We invite you to take a tour of the City of Winchester UK ... The County Town of Hampshire in the UK"
  • 14 documents (use the search engine) at the Winchester County Council page e.g [3] or [4]
  • Hampshire County Council coat of arms page "Hampshire's borders today are very little different from those of 1086, when the Domesday Book was compiled in Winchester, the county town then as now".
  • Hampshire County Council again "Hampshire County Council's strongly-urged case to keep the County Town of Winchester in the Wight and Hampshire South European Parliamentary Constituency has been accepted by the Boundary Commission."
  • Oxford Dictionary of English, revised ed. 2005. "Winchester: a city in southern England, the county town of Hampshire".
  • Philip's World Encyclopedia, OUP, 2005. "Winchester, County town of Hampshire".

And so on. In fact the 1815 Brookes's Gazetteer seems to be the sole source for it being Southampton. Tearlach 13:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The traditional counties of England section in the county town article lists the traditional county town - i.e. in most cases the town that the county is named after. It mentions where the County Hall is located if it differs from the traditional county town. Winchester is the location of Hampshire County Hall, but it is not the traditional county town, otherwise the county would be Winchestershire. The traditional county town and the location of the County Hall (if any) are both listed in the article. Owain 14:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Cite sources. You've provided one reference against many. Check out The National Gazetteer of Great Britain and Ireland (1868): Winchester: "locally situated in the hundred of Buddlesgate, county Hants, of which it is the county town". Southampton: {"county town" notably absent from description). Anyhow, all this is irrelevant to the Winchester article, where we're talking about current status. Tearlach 14:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I am not arguing that people refer to Winchester as the county town, but that Southampton is the traditional county town. In any case I haven't touched the Winchester article itself. Owain 14:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
that people refer to Winchester as the county town
No, they don't merely "refer to it". Read Wikipedia:Verifiability: if current respectable references all say it is, then by Wikipedia standards it is full stop. If you can't provide any sources corrobating your claim that "Southampton is the traditional county town of Hampshire", then it fails the criteria for inclusion. Tearlach 19:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Winchester was always the chief town of the County of Hampshire (even when it was the county of Southampton). It was the largest of the Hampshire Burhs in King Alfred's time as King of Wessex, much larger than that sited at Southampton. Southampton was for most of the past millennium not under the county, but was a county in its own right, the town and county of the town of Southampton. W Blackstone [1] explained about the nature of town corporations and how these required the king to issue a charter or letters patent to come into being, and that "to all corporations by prescription, such as the city of London, and many others which have existed as corporations, time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary" - Southampton was one of these boroughs, and is so described in Domesday. Its first actual charter was granted by Henry II (undated but from the first half of his reign which started in 1154 and ended in 1189), was a confirmation of existing liberties. This was a Royal Port, the King was the feudal Lord and protected it. The corporation gained a great deal from this relationship, but then so did the King. It became a Staple Port and the only legal port of entry for the wines of Bordeaux and Burgundy. These are all recorded in the [2] the official record of the Guild Merchant in the town and in the possession of the City Archive. The town because of its status was not under the writ of the King's Sheriff in Hampshire but had its own Port Reeve. See [3] Moonraker55 (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

GDP per head

In terms of GDP per head Hampshire is just above the national average at 105% (37th highest in England), rising to 122% when including Southampton and Portsmouth. The highest GDP per head is Portsmouth at 144% of the national average.

This is true, but misleading. The GDP per head figures here have been calculated as "total output within the borders of the region" divided by "number of people living in the region". This means that the figures are distorted significantly by people commuting into and out of the county.

For example, a town where everyone commutes to somewhere else and nobody works would have a GDP per head of zero, and a town with lots of incoming commuters would have a very high GDP per head. These distortions make the GDP head figures more or less irrelevant for illustrating whether somewhere is "affluent" or not, and in their current context in the article they are misleading. For example, Portsmouth looks rich, because it has lots of commuters coming in, while Hampshire as a whole doesn't look all that affluent, because the figures ignore all the commuters in Hampshire working in high paid jobs in London, Portsmouth etc.

I have removed these statistics from the article as they are more misleading than helpful. However, it would be nice to find some more useful statistics to illustrate Hampshire's economy. Enchanter 13:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Call me Ameri-centric, but shouldn't the article mention that the U.S. State of New Hampshire was named after Hampshire somewhere? :p -MaxJ

County flower: I would prefer to just post them a tenner

Exactly what status does this so-called "county flower" have in Hampshire. Which bodies have adopted it, or use it? Any? Who says that it is the county flower? Unless you put in the context then you are allowing Wikipedia to be used as free advertising by a, on all the evidence, very wily little charity: Plantlife. Good luck to them, but is the Hampshire article really the best place for us to subsidise their meagre marketing budget. Personally, I would prefer to just post them a tenner. --Mais oui! 16:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This was posted at User talk:Steinsky. Per the talk page header I am replying in a more appropriate public namespace.

Not wanting the fact about the county flower in the summary is one thing — fine, move it to where you think is more appropriate. Removing the fact altogether is rather different, though, and much less acceptable. Two or three editors have a rather unhealthy obsession with the county flower concept, trying to remove the article, trying to remove all mention of it from other articles, slapping disruptive {{fact}} templates on it, etc. Don't let them harry you into acting hastily. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the fact template is disruptive. This article only norrowly failed FAC, and it needs all the citations it can get. I know, you say it is disruptive because somebody has been adding it to all county articles, not just this one, without concern for whether it is really appropriate on all of those pages. But I consider the semi-automatic addition of single sentence facts to otherwise well developed and structured articles without consideration to whether it is being placed in appropriate context to be disruptive.
I have no problem with the fact being included in its current section, however. Thanks for taking the time to do this one properly. Joe D (t) 18:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
See the current discussion at Talk:Plantlife for information concerning the status of county flowers. (As with the AfD, Mais oui!'s campaign to remove or lessen the coverage of this notion is not finding consensus with other editors.)
Editors often add pieces of information to articles, which other editors then re-order, move, tidy, etc. — that's the way that Wikipedia works. One can begin to feel possessive about articles, and then this sort of thing can seem annoying, but that's an attitude against which one has to be on one's guard (I've fallen into the same trap). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Scouting

Somebody added the following to the introduction:

It is also one of the largest areas for Scouting groups.

I removed it because it does not give any indication of why the fact is notable enough to deserve a mention in the intro. I would have moved it to another section, but I did not because I don't know what the sentence means, therefore I can't determine which section is appropriate. Does it mean that a larger than average proportion of children in Hampshire are Scouts? (I'd suggest tagging onto recreation if so.) Does it mean that lots of Scout groups visit the county? (How about tagging onto tourism and events in the economy section?) Does it literally mean that Hampshire is a "large area" compared to other "Scouting areas"? (If so, I'd recommend dropping such a mediocre factoid altogether.) Also, id you're going to put it back in, how about a reference to back it up? Cheers, Joe D (t) 16:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The user in question was Crazyboy899. I've left a message on his talk page pointing here so hopefully he'll be able to clarify as appropriate. Waggers 08:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

  • Every statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation.
  • References should state the author, publisher, publishing date and access date if known.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 17:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Southamptonshire

i have severe doubts over this, if this was its historical name, then why is there a New Hampshire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.108.208 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??"

Anyway, reference now included. Cheers, Joe D (t) 00:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the page make at least some reference to Tounge? Seems strange that there could be a hampshire page without Tounge being mentioned at all. Is there some reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarraysebagmontefiori (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at this recently, following an edit on the Isle of Wight page. Three early 19th century maps I found, including the first series ordnance survey, name the county as Hampshire, the earliest 1806. Therefore I conclude that the suggestion that Hampshire didn't become the name until 1890 is, as far as common usage at least is concerned, not supported by the evidence. IanB2 (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

County Council Flag

Why is the County Council Flag not included in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.38.188 (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/logos/cx-logos-flags.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.38.188 (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hampshire does not have a county flag, legally the flag included here is only the County Council flag - only the County Council is allowed to fly it. I have recaptioned the flag in the infobox accordingly. Domrivers (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hampshire Hog

Do you not think that the Hampshire Hog deserves some mention? After all it is on the weather vein at 'The Castle' and a large bronze Hog stands just outside 'The Castle' in Winchester80.195.38.188 (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

County vs County Council

At the moment this article is about two distinct entities, the county of Hampshire, and the Hampshire County Council. This is problematic for a number of reasons -- the two are distinct, and are considered be as such by the Office of National Statistics, Ordnance Survey, etc -- one is an elected local government body, another a geographical area. E.g. this is the government's resource URI for the area known as The county of Hampshire and this is the one for Hampshire County Council

Although this may appear pedantic, as well better representing the real-world situation, it actually becomes crucial as we move into a more Semantic Web. At the moment, services such as DBpedia, which is derived from Wikipedia, is broken in this respect.

The entry for Kent faced the same problem, and how now split it into two entries: Kent and Kent County Council

CountCulture (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Pronounciation is wrong

British English is largely no-rhotic, and the IPA should reflect that. Furthermore, the wrong 'r' sound is used any way- the r found in arabic is used, as opposed to the english r. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.230.109 (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hants for Hamptonshire

I was mildly surprised that there's no explanation of why 'Hampshire' is shortened to 'Hants'. I found this on the County Council web site, but I don't know where it could go in the main article:

"Hampshire" is often abbreviated in written form to "Hants" and which sometimes gives rise to puzzlement. The abbreviated form is derived from the Old English Hantum plus Scir (meaning a district governed from the settlement now known as Southampton) and the Anglo-Saxons called it Hamtunschire. At the time of the Domesday Book (1086) this was compressed to Hantescire.

Halmyre (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi - I visited the Hampshire page specifically to find an answer to this question, so second the idea that this is included. --Scouseinthehouse (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done waggers (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a subject that will run on I am quite sure. The piece given on the County Council website seems to be perfectly innocuous, it gives an explanation that even the most pedantic of us will accept as reasonable without becoming too bogged down in the whole etymology. The fact is that as with most places, the historical rendition of the names of places will vary in different historical documents, even within the same document. These might be charters, deeds, legislation or other records. I have found the same place spelt three different ways in the space of as many lines in early Feet of Fines (Pedes Finium) or other land transactions. The written rendition is merely the interpretation given by a clerk, who may have no personal knowledge of the place in question, who has been given the place-name in evidence from a local person, who was probably illiterate and unable to offer any help with the spelling. The local dialect would influence the pronunciation and the clerk would make a judgment about how that might be written in whichever language was in use that day. If it was in Legal Latin, Old English or Norman French, the listener, fluent in that particular language would be interpreting the spelling based on the phonetic rules applying to the language of record. So, in effect the Anglo-Saxons, or English, certainly told the clerks of the Commissioners of the Domesday that the place was named Hantescire, which is probably less of a contraction in fact and more of an interpretation of a locally spoken version of the name, hence the superscription on the county record in Domesday, at least in the Winchester version, as translated and made into facsimile in [4]. There is an amount of literature on the subject of the naming of the town and county of Southampton. Reputedly Cerdic and Cynric, his son, who founded the West Saxon dynasty landed in the area bounded by Southampton Water in 519. [5], this date is challenged in the Winchester and Peterborough versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which cite the earlier year of 495 "Here two chieftains; Cerdic and Cynric his son, came to Britain with 5 ships at the place which is called Cerdic's shore, and on the same day fought against the Welsh" with further references of their territorial expansion recorded over the subsequent decade [6]. There has been substantial argument over the years about the origins of these people and suggestions that they were not Anglo-Saxon but Brythonic speaking Britons, but no compelling evidence has existed to support that theory, that often cited is that their names are not Germanic, but the reality is that the names passed down to us are interpretations of their actual names. Indeed it may be that some of the historical teaching of many generations needs revising and that whereas the small groups of Anglo-Saxons arriving, represented to us by a combination of ancient sources, as being an 'invasion' and inferring large population movements, may have been nothing more than that which occurred in 1066, with a powerful ruling elite coming to conquer. This idea, along with a remarkable pulling together of a large amount of DNA evidence is provided in [7], inspired by Sir Barry Cunliffe and supported by Colin Renfrew, both leading archaeological and historical leaders in pre-history and early history. The idea suggests that the indigenous peoples in South-east England were already directly related to the peoples on the opposite side of the channel from Belgic-Gaul to the Low Countries and especially the homelands of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. The DNA evidence, Oppenheimer argues, indicates that there were no dramatic changes to the DNA pool as a result of any historical 'invasions' and that the incoming groups arrived after the last glacial maximum, with the 'Celtic' peoples from the Iberian peninsula populating the coastal regions in the west and the east being dominated by groups arriving by different routes from two small refuges north-east and north-west of the Black Sea.

Notwithstanding all that the notion that the West Saxons landed somewhere near Netley and ended up settling the defensible peninsular that is Southampton is not beyond belief. That the place was named as Ham is likely to be telling us that this was home rather than as in the article which suggests a tautology of "village-town". Clark-Hall in his [8] drawing from contemporary works of the later Anglo-Saxon period gives a number of meanings for the word Ham: village, hamlet, manor being one, which became more prevalent during the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy and the later governance structures, but then more redolent of the circumstances of the early newcomers home, dwelling, house and also region or country. Tun which according to Clark-Hall could also infer house or manor, but was equally able to mean a group of houses, a town. Thus it is possible to see Hamtun as simply meaning hometown. The other name associated with Southampton at this period, particularly referring to that low lying part now occupied by St Mary's, and possibly the earliest of the AS settlements there, which was Hamwic. This too infers a habitation, a home, and similar to Hamtun, except that it is also applied to a bay or creek. Hamwic is on the edge of the River Test and since it was surrounded by salt-marshes, the word creek seems apposite. So, my contention is simply that Hamtun was named as the original settlement on this island of the elite group who came to found the Wessex dynasty. Their importance would have given stimulus to the name being applied to the wider county with the suffix of scir pronounced shire (or shear).Moonraker55 (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Commentaries on the Laws of England Book1, Chapter XVIII
  2. ^ Oak Book
  3. ^ Southampton City Charters Southampton City papers number 4, City of Southampton, 1966
  4. ^ Domesday Book: 4 Hampshire Julian Murray (Ed), Phillimore, Chichester, 1982
  5. '^ quoting the manuscripts of Dr. Speed: Rev. J Silvester Davies, A History of Southampton' p13
  6. ^ The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, translated and edited by Michael Swanton, Phoenix press, 2000
  7. ^ The origins of the English by Stephen Oppenheimer, Constable and Robinson, London, 2006
  8. ^ A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary

Lost land

Hampshire is the largest county in South East England and the third largest shire county in the United Kingdom despite losing more land than any other English county during the Local Government Act 1972 boundary changes.

Did Hampshire really lose more land than any other English county during the 1972 boundary changes? I would have thought that Lancashire lost more: (Furness, Liverpool, Sefton, St Helens, Knowsley, Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Salford, Manchester, Bury, Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham, the northern part of Tameside, Stretford and Urmston, although it did gain the Trough of Bowland and parts of Pendle from the West Riding of Yorkshire to compensate. Even with that compensation, Lancashire must surely have lost more.

As far as I'm aware, Hampshire lost Christchurch and Bournemouth, plus a couple of civil parishes near Christchurch. Even Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Cheshire, Lincolnshire, Somerset, Gloucestershire, Berkshire, Northumberland and County Durham probably lost a greater area. Are there any sources to back up the dubious claim in the article? Skinsmoke (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I might be wrong but I think Hampshire also lost the Isle of Wight
That's right, Hampshire also lost the Isle of Wight and that's a big chunk of land, that alone might be more than what Lancashire lost. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid not - according to its WP article the IoW became a separate administrative county in 1890. The Local Government Act 1972 only had an impact on the ceremonial aspect of the island. WaggersTALK 13:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Even then, the amount of land (about 700 sqare miles — see here and here) lost by Lancashire in 1974 is greater than that of the Isle of Wight (see here). Esszet (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

All counties have lost and gained at various times, the County of Surrey lost most of its population and a great chunk of land when the County of London was formed in 1889. It then later gained a chunk of the old county of Middlesex in 1965 with the Greater London County coming into being. Middlesex, having lost half of its area in 1889 now lost the rest and was consigned to history in 1965. The Isle of Wight was indeed a stand-alone county administratively from 1890, although it was still part of the county of Southampton later Hampshire for shared services such as the Police and the other emergency services - indeed it still is!

If comparisons are to be made then think of the poor old Yorkshire; the West Riding, probably the area with the greatest concentration of activity during the British industrial period was carved up under the 1972 arrangements. It lost Harrogate, Selbyand that south-eastern part to the new county of North Yorkshire, it lost Sheffield, Doncaster, Barnsley and Rotherham to the new county of South Yorkshire, and it lost a bit off its western side to the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham in Greater Manchester. It also lost the Bowland area of the Ribble valley too, to Lancashire! I too have difficulty with the claim!Moonraker55 (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

After looking at this discussion again, I think that it's safe to say that Hampshire has lost more land than any other county in British history. Lancashire, Yorkshire and Berkshire come close, Berkshire arguably lost the most land in the 1972 changes, historic Yorkshire itself remains large as it has been split into various other counties, and poor Lancashire can share pain with Hampshire as Lancashire lost a lot of land in 1972.

However I think it might be best to reword the "despite losing more land than any other English county during the Local Government Act 1972 boundary changes" sentence in the lead. Lancashire and Berkshire lost the most in 1972 (with Berkshire losing almost half of its land). Since 1890 to 1972 Hampshire has lost the Isle of Wight (148 square miles, larger than any segment Berkshire and Lancashire had lost), Bournemouth, Christchurch and large areas of the outer New Forest/River Avon area were lost to Dorset (Bournemouth and Christchurch combed have a population of 241,000, something I am still angry about today) and also the large parish of Combe, which contains the highest points in South East England, now in Berkshire. Hampshire has definitely lost the most land out of any English county over the years. Would anyone agree on rewording the lead so it reads something like "despite losing more land than any other English county in all modern boundary changes" or something similar? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think "modern" would need qualifying, preferably by including the dates: "In boundary changes since 1890, Hampshire has lost more land to other counties than any other English county." or something similar would be more encyclopaedic. The other issue here is one of original research in the form of synthesis. The ideal would be to have a reliable source that says "Hampshire has lost more land to other counties than any other English county" as a single statement rather than piecing the various amounts of land lost from various counties with separate citations as the latter would go against Wikipedia policy. WaggersTALK 08:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Notable people from Hampshire

Can Ben Ainslie really be classed as from Hampshire. He was born in Macclesfield. This really needs clarifying with a comment on the lines of lives and was brought up in Lymington. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Am in the process of expanding this section, which will almost certainly need to be hived off to a separate article, and replaced by a section highlighting the most well known names. As it stood, it looked like a list from Heat magazine, consisting of a couple of singers, two or three recent sports stars, a comedian and somebody best know for flashing her knockers in boys' mags. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd say it's time to split off the list - far too long for the main article now. Pterre (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I've been away from the article for a few weeks (I needed a break!). List is almost complete. Can then be split off and summary written to replace it. Bear with it for a couple more weeks and will be sorted. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It is a most fantastic and comprehensive list; thank you so much for putting it together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.127.91.244 (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Culture, arts and sport

Selborne houses the Oates museum for the explorer Lawrence Oates, and entertainers Peter Sellers, Benny Hill, Carl Barat and Craig David.

Is this really supposed to mean that those four entertainers (dead and alive) are housed in Selborne? Skinsmoke (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

I have broadly rewritten the first couple of lines of etymology. This mainly comprised correcting the Anglo-Saxon spelling of "Hamtun" but also I have tried to remove awkward constructions forcing the previous writer to repeat him or herself and replace it with clearer language. I would appreciate it if these changes were not rolled back this time. -_- Domrivers (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Notable people

This section is a bare listing that is IMHO far too long for the article and needs breaking out as a separate list (or drastically culling). Views? --Bermicourt (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's a blot on an otherwise good article. User:Pterre said (above) that he's working on it and will move it to a separate list, but that was back in December and it doesn't look like he or User:Skinsmoke (who added most of the entries) are actively working on it now. I'm all for moving the current section to a separate list article and either returning the section to the way it was before or, more preferably, to some prose. WaggersTALK 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I said it was high time it was split off, not that I was working on it! Looks as though Skinsmoke has forgotten about it. Pterre (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
This list is way too long, I'm thinking about nominating Hampshire for GA but before I do I am thinking about deleting this entire list for the time being until this can be put in a separate article. If there are no objections can I delete the list now? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon period

I want to substantially replace the first five paragraphs of the "History" section. The information there is not in line with modern scholarship - most of it being based around a single text dating from 1913 - 1913! Two entire paragraphs are devoted to expounding this ancient theory about Hampshire's borders - it is my view that the history section for a single county should be much more concise, and if such weight is to be given to a single work, it should be much more up to date. I will be making tweaks and changes of varying size over several days, please discuss before rolling them back. Domrivers (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Historically known as...

To editor Zacwill16: and To editor Jaguar: - Since the 1980s I've been researching my family history in Hampshire and have BMD certificates (between 1883 and 1921) for ancestors all issued in the County of Southampton. I have never come across the term Southamptonshire. That's not to say it didn't exist, so perhaps it would be best not to keep reverting until a reference can be cited - the sentence could even be taken out altogether until it is resolved. Is that a reasonable interim compromise? I will look for refs for both names and report back here. Tony Holkham (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree we could take the whole sentence out. I don't like the sound of both 'County of Southampton' nor 'Southamptonshire' as they are both never used in modern context. I'll be bold and take out the sentence? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Here is a ref for Southamptonshire (ref 46 in Southampton article)
Tony Holkham (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
and another, with 1868 source
Tony Holkham (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
...and here's a ref that gives the dates for the different names. Confusing, or what?
Tony Holkham (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
My last comment, honest! This para appears in History of Hampshire, but is uncited -
"The county has in the past been called "Southamptonshire" and appears as such on some Victorian maps. The name of the administrative county was changed from 'County of Southampton' to 'County of Hampshire' on 1 April 1959. The short form of the name, often used in postal addresses, is Hants."
This is more or less as I have always understood it. Tony Holkham (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
As the name 'County of Southampton' formerly was the official name of the county, I think we should include it. The name 'Southamptonshire' has never been official. Zacwill16 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The name 'County of Southampton' is mentioned under the section Etymology, and we could add that 'Southamptonshire' has also been used, with one of the above refs. As to whether it should be mentioned in the lead, I have no strong opinion. Tony Holkham (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Hope it's ok now. Tony Holkham (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Population labelled as 2014 estimate

Why is the population listed as a mid 2014 estimate when the figures in the article haven't been updated to what the 2014 estimate actually is? The figures should be 1,346,136 admin population and 1,800,511 for the ceremonial county yet the 2011 figures are still listed instead.Subtlemammoth (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Be bold! KieranTribe 08:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hampshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Old Hampshire?

Can anyone explain why the introductory section uses 'Old Hampshire' throughout? I have never heard it referred to as such and the Etymology section doesn't mention it either. Perhaps it was included to differentiate it from New Hampshire, in which case perhaps it should simply be mentioned once? CrisH 15:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwbr77 (talk • contribs)

I was really confused about that as well. "Old Hampshire" sounds like such an Americanism to me. Avpdtavrosnitram (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hampshire. 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:

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) 18:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hampshire. 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:

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) 15:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Winchester as capital

@‎Murgatroyd49 and possibly others. Today I removed the uncited claim from the lead that Winchester was the former capital city of England. That was quickly reverted with a citation added. I will re-revert for these reasons: 1/ Winchester served as the main centre of the Belgae, not of England. 2/ England did not exist at that time, hence the claim is anachronistic. 3/ Ditto, calling Winchester a city at that time - anachronistic. 4/ The citation given is of low quality - a travel guide, hence unreliable. It cannot be seen online either, which although not necessary, does not help this discussion. 5/ The Winchester article itself does not say it was the English capital. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

1) Winchester was the capital of England at the time of Willam the Conqueror. 2) England did exist at the time of Wiliam the Conqueror. 3) The medieval city was a town with a cathedral, Winchester has had a cathedral since the 9th century. 4) The book quoted is not a travel guide. 4a) Many books cannot be seen on line but they are still the source of many if not most citations on Wikipedia. 5) The article perhaps needs expanding then. In the meantime I have reverted your edit. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Do we know what we are talking about?

The article refers to the ceremonial county of Hampshire in the lead, as being the article's subject. The infobox box says that its origins are ancient, which is not true. Is this yet another example of WP being confused and in turn confusing readers? So, what exactly is this article about: the ceremonial county, the traditional county, the county council? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Can I suggest you re-read the header, the reference to the ceremonial county is it's current position as the most populous outside the metroplotan counties. It is fairly obvious, at least to me, that the rest applies as much to the traditional county. In what sense is it not ancient in origin? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Home of the birth of the RAF

In the lead is states that "Hampshire includes the birthplaces of the Royal Navy, British Army, and Royal Air Force." Wasn't the RAF born at Upavon which is in Wiltshire now and also was in Wiltshire in 1918? Even if I am wrong, it mentions it in the lead but does not in the article so either should be amended, updated, deleted or attributed in the main body of the text. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The claim to be the birth place of the Army and Navy as well is debatable. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

County population

I've reverted Roger 8 Roger's edit for two reasons.

1) In deleting most of the paragraph s/he's also deleted the supporting references for the claim.

2) The ceremonial county includes both the administrative county, administered by the the Hampshire CC in Winchester, as well as the two unitary authorities of Portsmouth and Southampton. Therefore their inclusion in the pargraph is justified. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think that detail should be in the lead too, but I think it could be better phrased. No big deal though. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
No worries, possibly better to discuss that sort of edit on the talk page first so a better concensus can be found. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Wildlife

The whole wildlife section is unsupported by the source, which only refers to hunting fallow deer and foxes and is 20 years out of date. It did make me smile, though, in stating the b*****n' obvious. I'll see if I can find some reliable sources. Any ideas welcome. I don't see why this couldn't be a good article again, with some work. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

REVIEW

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.
  • ETYMOLOGY
    • Seems OK
  • HISTORY
    • 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).
  • GOVERNANCE and POLITICS
    • Very short of sources,
    • and should be combined. Done
  • ECONOMY
    • Again, sources missing.
    • No mention of industries such as extraction of raw materials,  Done
    • energy
    • or fishing,
    • and too little about everything else.
  • DEMOGRAPHICS
    • Sources missing.
    • The table is too detailed, and could be distilled into a paragraph of text.
  • EDUCATION
    • No sources.
  • GEOGRAPHY
    • 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.
  • CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES
    • 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
  • CULTURE, ARTS AND SPORT
    • This is heavily weighted towards sport.
    • Very few sources.
  • MEDIA
    • Source needed for newspapers.
  • TRANSPORT
    • No sources.
  • NOTABLE PEOPLE
    • Some better-known names should be in here  Done (by taking from Culture section)
    • (+ sources)
  • MISSING SECTION: Health  Done
  • GENERAL COMMENTS
    • 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)

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)
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)
I'll start hunting. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Some excellent additions, Murgatroyd49; any more? Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Section order

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

Jalsa Salana

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 [5].SovalValtos (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Dongas

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)

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)
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)
Done, I'm happy now. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead

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)

@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)

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)
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)
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)

Archive

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

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hampshire/Archive_1&oldid=1153177658"