Talk:Bath, Somerset

Pronunciation
The "local" pronunciation given for Bath (both the recording and the IPA transcription) is in fact an RP or Standard Southeastern English pronunciation. While there are plenty of posh RP speakers who have migrated to Bath, the local pronunciation of someone with a more traditional Bath accent would be [baːθ]. Is "local" meant to represent RP (in opposition to an American pronunciation), or the actual local accent? Secondus2 (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The text currently says /bɑːθ/. Not sure I quite understand: are you suggesting that square brackets should be used, thus: [bɑːθ] ? MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that either [baːθ] be used, rather than /bɑːθ/, and the recording changed to that of a local accent, or the word "locally" changed to "British English" to reflect that this is a phonemic transcription, based on a Southeastern standard, not a phonetic transcription of a local accent Secondus2 (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, in that case I agree. Would you like to make the change? MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, done :) Secondus2 (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that ⟨aː⟩ in the local pronunciation means a vowel that is DISTINCT from, meaning that there are two long open unrounded vowels in Bath English (and some other varieties of West Country English) - hence a separate transcription (which makes no sense otherwise, in Australia and New Zealand is also central and yet we always use the diaphonemic symbol ⟨ɑː⟩ for it (or ⟨ɑːr⟩, whenever the corresponding GenAm pronunciation is rhotic)). See Ae-tensing for a very closely related phenomenon in North American English. Sol505000 (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Source? All I can gather from sources (Wells; Altendord & Watt) is that the /æ/–/ɑː/ contrast is absent or variable in the West Country with the exception of Bristol and Southampton, which West Country English too would have you believe. So the choice between the diaphonemes and  becomes arbitrary and either conveys almost nothing, hence the phonetic transcription. Also I don't think $⟨a⟩$ here means central. Nardog (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Football
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)

"Possible reintroduction" of trams - update?
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)
 * It's wishful thinking on someone's part. Unlikely ever to happen. Probably better just to delete it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't live near Bath or have access to its local news, I would say let those closest to the scene of events make the cut.Cloptonson (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'm a long way away as well. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Rotork
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Then that looks like an additional good reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I should add that I have absolutely nothing to do with the company! 193.223.71.81 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah right, so not Dorothy Thompson or Kiet Huynh, then. What a let down. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)