Wikipedia

Talk:Portsmouth/Archive 3

< Talk:Portsmouth
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Walshie79 in topic Island city
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Island city

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(…) is the United Kingdom's only island city This seems to need some rephrasing. I can grasp the intent, but every city in the UK is on an island. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 00:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But every city in the UK is not situated on its own island, Portsmouth is.

Isn't Ely on an island? Walshie79 (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the first paragraph in the history section, the translation of the original name of the city appears to need to be translated again. "Portus" is Latin for harbor, so the translation is saying "mouth of the harbor harbor". --Maj. Gen. Stanley (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In that Anglo-Saxon quote, you might like to tidy it and/or replace the '7's with '&'s. And "Winston Churchill reaffirmed"????? Quoting something is not reaffirming it!Vince Calegon 14:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


Lists of names

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lists of names in this article should be sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. As there is no way of constantly maintaining linked articles, this applies to names which have a Wikipedia article as well as those that do not. Any name listed with no verifiable citations should be removed. Refer to WP:NLIST for guidance. Fæ (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

useful source

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00792h2/Coast_Shorts_Cuttlefish_and_Pompey/ I thought that might be a useful source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.101.44 (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/military/1642-south.htm this one too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.101.44 (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

I am very surprised that the record low is -6c. I would have thought it was much lower. Donkfest1 (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

-6C is the record low from the now closed Southsea weather station, which used to be situated at the western end of Southsea Common and was recorded in January 1987 (though it got almost as cold during the winters of 1962/1963, 1978/1979 & 1981/1982). The nearest official Met Office recording station to Portsmouth, still in operation, is in Lee-On-The-Solent and the record low there is -9C 92.18.122.164 (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have researched the temperature records from the Southsea weather station & it appears that the actual record low temperature is -8.0C recorded on January 13th 1987. In other noteable cold winters the minimums were:

1947: -7.8C 1963: -7.8C 1979: -7.0C 1981: -5.0C 1985: -6.4C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.126.114 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Can people please stop removing the Southsea weather box. The figures are from the (now closed) Met Office station that was situated on Southsea common. We can keep both the Southsea & Solent weather boxes as a compromise, as Solent weather station is not actually situated in Portsmouth at all, but in Lee-on-the-Solent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.11.46.142 (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The weather box for Southsea is not vandalism, a good compromise is to keep this as well as the Solent MRSC weather box Waikikibeachbum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The data for Southsea Met Office weather station is held by the BADC database, it is NOT on the Met Office website. You need to register to be able to view this data, but it is correct & it is NOT falsified information. The records are also held by the University of Portsmouth & are available in the library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.18.19 (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of the Southsea data, wherever it comes from. The summers are too dry and sunny compared to Lee on Solent, Southampton and also Thorney Island. These all average 40-50mm rain and 200-230 hours sun per month in the May-July period. Hard to believe that Southsea is that different. Also there is the use of a nonstandard period (1976-2005), which conveniently includes the very hot and dry summer of 1976 but excludes the run of poor summers starting in 2007. It looks decidedly like "tourist office making out the climate to be better than it is". 2.31.255.128 (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Population figures

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some of the population figures in the infobox seem to include Southampton, so are misleading. Nurg (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was just looking at the Glasgow page, it has a rather nice segment on the coat of arms, discussing its meaning and history. Could someone with more knowledge on this subject consider posting? Justin.Parallax (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Portsmouth. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 10:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


The road to FA

Latest comment: 7 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion

Suggest Jaguar opens a peer review and invites wide input to improve this. I think the general reading standard has improved considerably in the last few weeks. But it would be good to see a top quality article on this and it reach FA status eventually.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I think we can concur that all of the sources matches the content in the article now, thanks to your excellent review. Really I think that some of the prose could do with some polishing and insight from other people, so I'll open a peer review shortly. It's a shame that Cassianto, We hope and SchroCat have retired as I could have always relied on them for comments! No doubt this would receive a grilling at FAC but I need to know what sort of general direction to take this article in before the road to FA. JAGUAR  22:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Though in fairness you've earned a break from this haha!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Sources issues

I've been asked by Dr B if I will comment on sourcing and referencing aspects. As there are 400+ citations I can't possibly check them all (though I guess someone will have to), but I've looked at the first half dozen:

  • Ref 1: This is a report published in 2007, yet it is cited as the source for the mid-2014 population estimate for the metropolitan area of 1.547 million. I imagine there are more up-to-date figures available, e.g. the 2011 census, but if not, the 2007 figure should not be presented as a mid-2014 estimate. This report is also the source for the statement in the text that South Hants is the 6th largest urban area in England. According the table on pp. 120–21 it is the eighth, and is the largest in the SE after London.
  • I added "2007 estimate" after the figure in the infobox. Unfortunately I couldn't find newer figures for Portsmouth's metro so I'll have to stick with this one for now. Also, I found out that the 2007 ref is outdated, as the South Hampshire built up area was merged in 2011. This source puts it as the fifth most populated in the UK at 855,569, so I went with that and changed it. I couldn't access it from the office of national statistics. JAGUAR  21:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 2: This is used as a source for the estimated city population given in the infobox as 209,085, and also for a population figure of 205,400 given in the text. The actual figure I see quoted in the source is 203,500. I don't know where the other figures come from or which is correct, but the infobox and the text need to be consistent and need to be cited to a source
  • Time to clarify the conflicting population figures – I never know which one to use. The book I have says that Portsmouth had a population of 207,100 as of 2011, ref 2 says it's 203,00 but ref 3 (the official census) estimates it is 205,100. Maybe the editor of the book I have made a mistake, and although ref 2 comes from Portsmouth City Council itself, I'd go with the official census any day. If there are no objections then I'll remove ref 2 from the infobox and change the figure to 205,100 and the year to 2011. JAGUAR  21:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 3: This is the supposed source for the ethnic breakdown of the city's population, but the figures given in the article don't seem to appear in the source – can you indicate where they do appear? Also, the (uncited) breakdown given in the lead is different.
  • Ref 4: Relates to Leicester, not Portsmouth
  • I couldn't find this. Did somebody remove it? JAGUAR  21:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, you did, with this edit. When you don't give edit summaries you confuse everyone, including yourself. Brianboulton (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 6: I can't get access – I'm getting a "don't have permission" message. Can you say who is able to access this site?
  • Archived. JAGUAR  21:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave these with you, and look at a few more when I get the chance. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I checked most of the sources from geography down to media I think, which I believe Jaguar has addressed but the ones for history could be checked. I just wanted somebody to ensure that we're good on that aspect before continuing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments! All done so far. The population figures are a pain as the 2011 census site is a mess. JAGUAR  21:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


I have limited time to spend on this, but I am concerned that some of your history sources do not meet FA standards of quality and reliability. In particular (numbers as at 4 October 1530 hours):

  • Ref 16 (Localhistories.org): This looks like the work of an amateur historian – no evidence of validation or academic audit. This ref is wrongly titled, and is in fact the same as Ref 45, to which a large number of citations are made.
  • Tim Lambert has a BA honours in history and has written an encyclopaedia called World History Encyclopedia. His linkedin profile gives him off as a historian too. I mentioned this in the GA review and think he's credible, even if the website has a bad font. I also fixed the duplicate ref. JAGUAR  16:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • What's acceptable at GAN is not necessarily so at FAC, where the source quality/reliability bar is rather higher. The issue is not Tim Lambert's graduate qualifications or his self-description as a historian, but the extent to which his text has received any scholarly appraisal, as would be the case if it was published in textbook form. By all means get another opinion, from an editor with FAC experience in reviewing history articles, but I believe you would be wise to seek alternative sources. Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 17 (portsmouth-guide.co.uk) No indication of who has published this. The "home" page returns "cannot be found"
  • Removed. I couldn't even find anything to do with the Southwick Cartularies in the books. JAGUAR  16:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 27 (Portsmouth Wine Trade): dead link
  • Removed, I originally archived it but found that the exports were better mentioned in History of Portsmouth, so I rewrote the sentence and sourced it to that instead. JAGUAR  16:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 29 (portsmouth-houses.co.uk): A poorly-written anonymous contribution, no status as a reliable source
  • That must have been when I was desperate and using online sources before I ordered the books. Strangely, the raid on Portsmouth is mentioned in the books, but only the one that happened two years earlier was mentioned. Anyway, found a better source. JAGUAR  16:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 32 (Hampshire Histories): The "about us" link reveals this as another project by enthusiastic amateur historians
  • Removed. JAGUAR  16:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 37 (johnsmilitaryhistory.com): Yet another amateur I suspect
  • Removed. JAGUAR  16:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

All these are likely to need replacing if you are serious about a FAC nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Portsmouth. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portsmouth/Archive_3&oldid=1085919008"