Talk:South Hampshire

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hampshire High‑importance

	Hampshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Untitled

"Places within the wider South Hampshire commuter belt include: [...] Chichester, Bognor Regis..."

Which, the last time I looked, were in West Sussex. OK, now I take the point about their contribution to the urban area, however the sentence does sound distinctly strange... DWaterson (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key words are "commuter belt" - you're not seriously suggesting that the whole of the London commuter belt is within London, are you? Waggers (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Southampton urban area and Portsmouth urban area

I think these two articles should be merged into this because the 2011 census showed that the two areas had merged into one larger South Hampshire Built-up area. Eopsid (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have the Office for National Statistics merged the two areas. If they have then the Wikipedia areas should be merged, if not than both should remain. The two areas have been recognised as part of a larger South Hampshire metropolitan area for best part of 50 years, but this article is not about that; it's about the official Office for National Statistics recognised areas. Nuttah (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article separates parts of the southampton urban area yet is very liberal with clumping areas near Portsmouth into one, considering the merge of Southampton urban area and Portsmouth urban area there is no point using this previous source as it has no merit in accurately showing the scale of southampton's sub areal. Use a source that shows things as they are or dont use one at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.61.145 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The previous source is the 2001 census and the current one is 2011 census. Links to the data can be found on this article in the references section. The old data is up there to show the area changed between the two censuses. If it confuses you maybe that is a problem but your argument seems to be you agree with what they said was in the Southampton urban area but not the Portsmouth one Eopsid (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My keyboard was playing up at the time, what I generally mean is both urban areas are actually a similar population but the source gives great bias towards portsmouth. Hedge end for example should be included as Southampton but isnt, and if gosport is part of Portsmouth then Totton should certainly be part of Southampton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.61.145 (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bias. The Portsmouth one just appears larger because of how they define it. It is something like a less than 200m gap between buildings then it is in the urban area. In 2001 Hedge End and Totton didn't have a less than 200m gap between them and the Southampton urban area so they weren't included. But areas like Portchester, Gosport, Fareham, Waterlooville and Havant did have a less than 200m gap between them and the rest of the Portsmouth Urban area. With Gosport it is connected to Portsmouth via Fareham and Portchester. Eopsid (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are redundant terms and should be discarded. If the ONS no longer uses the descriptions of Southampton Urban Area and Portsmouth Urban Area, it is pointless to continue using them here. The table should just be a list of areas alongside their population (I'd suggest ordered in terms of size rather than geographically grouped). Breaking it down into "XXX Urban area" adds to confusion, makes the table harder to read. It might be worth a sentence in the history bit, but should certainly not be present in a table of current data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.174.8.204 (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a valid point. Grouping them up like that seems to me the only sensible way to have a table which allows for comparisons between the censuses. I've removed the southampton and portsmouth urban area totals which it gave for the 2011 census. It's incorrect that it gives though because the ONS no longer uses them and it would be Original research to use them. Eopsid (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map of South Hampshire

Is there a map of South Hampshire that might fit in the article? I can follow the hyperlinks for Portsmouth and Southampton but it would help to have a small map of the whole region. Especially for readers like myself from across the pond. Foreignshore (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on South 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) 10:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]