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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset 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.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites 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.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is too much repetitive detail about the club's history whichh should be in the article about the club itself. This article is about the city not the club. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The subsection of the Transport section detailing this has a latest dated detail at least 6 years ago. It would be worth mentioning if there has been any progress on the project since.Cloptonson (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I'm pre-empting the inevitable revert of my edit. Rotork is one of two FTSE250 companies based in the city - the other being Future - and both should have at least a brief mention in this article. The economy section mentions hosts of other employers, but somehow a mention of one of Bath's most successful businesses, and which has a well established Wikipedia article of its own, is not allowed?! 193.223.71.81 (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that looks reasonable, provided the mention is neutral, factual and brief. In fact, one might expect any notable company, which has a presence in the city, to be mentioned in the same way? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The bar for inclusion is surely when a company and a city have a close connection - the relationship (over many decades now) and importance of Bath to Rotork (and to a lesser extent, vice versa) is detailed in the Rotork article. 193.223.71.81 (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have updated the district section adding updated 2021 census information and a table. However, the city section is still outdated. As far as I can tell (and I may be wrong, because the detailed census information is a bit confusing and awkward to access, buried within Excel sheets), there's no specific 2021 census data available for the city of Bath itself, only for the Bath and North East Somerset district. As a result, it's not possible to say what the updated demographics of the city are, let alone break them down further into 'Other White' and 'White British', etc. as was possible in 2011. There are some sites which claim to have this updated information, but they either don't list their source, or vaguely refer to ONS data which I can't actually find, so I suspect these sites are straight up making it up or just doing vague estimates - one of these sites is listed as the source for the city's current population in this article, which might be an issue if their data is indeed made up by them. --Bloodloss21:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is indeed a pain to get to the data, but I think it is possible – I wouldn't be sure that those 3rd party sites haven't done it (equally, I wouldn't be sure they haven't messed it up).
You can get all the data from the Topic Summaries section of 2021 Census on nomis. But as you say, the user experience there is terrible. You have to download spreadsheets for each one separately. More importantly, you have to select the correct "geography" each time, which can be the tricky bit when you're looking for anything that isn't a district, electoral ward or civil parish. But you can do it by selecting all of the Super Output Areas that make up Bath: go to the 'user defined' tab, 'create your own area', select 'some' for '2021 super output areas - mid layer' (or lower layer if it turns out the mid layer areas straddle the boundary), select 'B&NES' in the drop menu and tick 'Use maps', then pick the ones that make up the city.
(This assumes that ONS output areas at some level still match the Bath city boundary. Which I expect they probably do, but eventually they might not. This is the problem with the messy way that UK towns and cities are defined. ONS output areas won't straddle the boundaries of civil parishes, electoral wards, districts, counties or constituencies. But Bath is none of those any more, its city status is just ceremonial, based in The Charter Trustees Regulations 1996, which preserved the definition of the city as being the old district boundaries – long after those boundaries have become irrelevant for anything else, hence some of the B&NES electoral wards now ignoring them.)
This topic does raise a separate issue though: why are we including such detailed demographics about B&NES in this article? B&NES has its own article where those details belong. I can imagine it might make sense to have a table of demographic data with columns for the city and the built-up area, and perhaps B&NES and the UK alongside as comparators. But not a whole standalone section of B&NES data. (I know the section pre-dates your work updating it, so don't take this as a slight on those efforts – your update simply brought it to my attention!) Joe D(t)23:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
