Talk:Portsmouth/Archive 1

In Hampshire or not
Can we get some agreement here on the Hampshire topic, I for one *as a resident of Portsmouth* think that Portsmouth is in Hampshire.


 * It seems to depend on what you mean by "Hampshire". It's defined by the government isn't it?  The current official boundaries seem to exclude Portsmouth.


 * Googling Portsmouth City Council's website http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk on its contact page gives its address as in Hampshire. -I


 * Customary postal addresses may stay around for a while: it doesn't prove much. Mail goes by postcodes these days, not county, so if you look up the postcode at http://www.royalmail.co.uk/  it will omit the HANTS.


 * Portmouth City Council is a Unitary Authority. As a consequence, it is no longer under the administrative authority of Hampshire County Council. However, Portsmouth as a geographical place does properly remain within the Ceremonial county of Hampshire. DWaterson 11:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Copy of Portsmouth crest
Does anyone know where to get a public domain copy of Portsmouth's crest (The moon and star) ?

Synfonia
The Portsmouth Symfonia was from Portsmouth, right? // Liftarn

History
There's not much on the city past Elizabeth II - this needs more adding to.

Also, Southampton has the 'interesting people/features' list a bit more fleshed out - perhaps something liek this could be added? And Pompey's rivalry with Soton, of course...

In fact, the article doesn't mention 'pompey' at all. Quite a few things could be done in fact!

Spinnaker Tower
"Plans are afoot to build a tower called the Spinnaker Tower at Gunwharf. The much-troubled millennium project is now finally underway and due for completion in late 2004."

This needs updating. &mdash;wwoods 17:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

pompey
why is portsmouth referred to as pompey

Portsmouth F.C (Portsmouth Football Club), basically Pompey is a nickname for Portsmouth F.C.


 * Pompey is the nickname for the city, which is also applied to the football team, NOT vice versa. There are many suggested origins for the nickname, the most likely of which is that ships entering Portsmouth harbour make an entry in the ship's log 'Pom. P.' as a reference to Portsmouth Point.
 * I think that should be in the article then. --AW (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The suggested origin of Pompey from Portsmouth port sounds right. I think it should be included also. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-order content?
There doesn't seem to be any order to the content of the Portsmouth article. Should it be alphabetised?

I've ordered the content in (what I believe is) a more intuitive way. Also added a Lists section. I really want to make this article as readable as it can be. --Adam Stemp 18:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Four boroughs
Portsmouth is in fact a metropolitan city of almost half a million, with four boroughs: Havant, Gosport, Fareham and Waterlooville

Are any of these in the City area? Can this be qualified a bit? Is this a "Greater Portsmouth area"? MRSC 18:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is complete nonsense, and needs either rewriting or deleting. There is no such thing as a "Greater Portsmouth Area" commonly recognised by any authority that I know of. One does occasionally refer to the "South Hampshire Conurbation", however this includes Southampton and the towns and villages in between. It is certainly wrong to refer to a "metropolitan city" - the City of Portsmouth council administrative area is not a Metropolitan Borough, and it definitely doesn't include Fareham, Gosport, or Havant. At best, I think this could only be amended to say that "the Portsmouth Harbour area conurbation has a total population of n. people" or somesuch. DWaterson 11:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Waterlooville is not in Portsmouth as far as I'm aware. But if it's going to be there than so should Leigh Park. I don't think any of us want that.--I&#39;ll bring the food 04:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Phone code
Minor edit war has occurred on this, 023 is not sufficient, it is even shared with Southampton!! (which is 02380). As far as I know all current Portsmouth numbers begin 02392. Hyperman 42 02:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to propagate the edit war further, but the code is definitely (023), which happens to also be the code for Southampton etc. 92 is the first two digits of each customer's number in Portsmouth, but does not form a part of the official code. DWaterson 15:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Portsmouth Area dialling code is 023 (a code it shares with Southampton). This is followed by an eight digit phone number that in Portsmouth 92******. 92 is part of the phone number, not the dialling code

OK, I see what you mean. No obvious way of clarifying the sharing of the code without extra verbiage, so I will leave things as they are. Hyperman 42 01:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the extra verbiage. Seems a bit trainspotter to clarify any further though...--I&#39;ll bring the food 04:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason people think of the area code as a 5 digit numer is because phone numbers used to be 6 digits not 8. Infact you don't even need to use 92 in the number if calling within the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.103.80 (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Famous Residents
Why is JAKAZiD always removed? again and again, he is releasing a friggin' single into the UK CHARTS! Why are other people on there that have done pretty much nothing, whilst JAKAZiD is constantly removed. 82.30.158.132 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Kennith Restall: Championship Body builder. He also trained with Arnold Swatzineger when he was livinging in Portsmouth. Due to lack of spelling (:P) and Restall's held titles I'm not updating it right away though. If anyone knows then go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.103.80 (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sultan
I have been told the sultan of Zanzibar took refuge in Portsmouth during the Second World War. Does anybody know if this is true?

SAVE SOME FOR ME!
Hey Portsmouth: save some for me!

Incorrectly licenced image
Greetings Pompey fans. I notice that the image is not properly licenced and perhaps should be tagged for deletion as it is owned by BAE and restricted for use. I would like to propose that this image would be a reasonable sustitute and is licenced in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Do you agree? If so please feel free to place it in the article. Best wishes and thanks Des Desk1 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey - When I logged into Portsmouth, England as a non member, this was the only writing that came up on the page.

"Portsmouth is atown full of smelly pikeys who like to amake sex crime with family members!!!!! smellys skates"

I was unable to edit it out. Some one should get rid of this sort of trash.

WW2
the article seems a bit lacking on world war 2 history, which is odd given how much its linked to by WW2 articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.102.218 (talk)

Edit wars
the information looks valid, are you honestly saying that you dispute Nelson set off from portsmouth Nick? James L Williams 08:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The reverts were made because the edits damaged the article by removing things such as the wiki links. If you think the nelson statement is valid [which I think is - thouh a refernce is prefered] then please include it. But be careful not to lose any of the previous content. To See why it was reverted look at the difference buttons and see what was lost. LordHarris 08:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to work on a compromise edit that includes James' content and the lost wikilinks etc. I'm also going to spell Portsmouth with a capital "P" - something with I think you should also do, James. Waggers 09:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, all done now. Please post comments here rather than continuing an edit war and commenting in the edit summary.  I have declined James' application for page protection as it seems that a sensible compromise is possible through discussion here. Waggers 09:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would draw attention to James L William's edit that I reverted (singular, not "continuous" as the user has claimed elsewhere) and note the following:
 * Removal of multiple valid Wikilinks in the "Secondary education" section
 * Change of past-tense date to clearly nonsensical future tense date
 * Like any conscientious editor would, I checked James L William Talk page and discovered a previous warning he had blanked (which he has now reblanked and replaced with a protection tag). I therefore called the situation as it seemed to be. As to the other material added, it may have been true, but it was unreferenced and I wasn't going to bother wasting my time seeking verification.Nick Cooper 10:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's fair. User:Ctbolt has correctly added  tags now, which I should have done whilst making the compromise edit. -- Waggers 10:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert tag edit war.
There appears to be an anonymous user with a dynamically assigned, variable, IP address: 82.26.98.237  contributions 82.26.99.28   contributions 83.26.102.63  contributions 82.26.102.218 contributions 82.26.106.254 contributions 82.26.107.31  contributions 82.26.107.104 contributions 82.26.110.9   contributions 82.26.111.152 contributions

...... to name a few. Who has for some reason, either simple mischief, dislike of the city of Portsmouth England or its educational establishments or some other reason not apparent, decided to repeatedly call by one method or another for the deletion of a set of articles. South Downs College (Portsmouth) Mayfield School (Portsmouth) City of Portsmouth Boys' School The Portsmouth Grammar School Portsmouth High School (Southsea) a subdivision of Portsmouth St John's College (Portsmouth) City of Portsmouth Girls' School Priory School (Portsmouth) Similarly this user has recently made changes to the main Portsmouth page by unlinking Highbury College, Portsmouth College, South Downs College and Havant College Admiral Lord Nelson School, City of Portsmouth Girls' School, King Richard School, Mayfield School, Milton Cross School, Priory School, Springfield School, St Edmund's RC School, St Luke's C of E VA Secondary School and City of Portsmouth Boys' School. In addition as, user Simon S Sumpton (since blocked) this user seems to have created diverts for Admiral Lord Nelson School (Portsmouth) King Richard Secondary School (Portsmouth) Milton Cross School (Portsmouth) Springfield School (Portsmouth) St Edmund's RC School (Portsmouth) St Luke's School (Portsmouth). It might be suggested that the user is attempting by a series of guerrilla actions to use Wikipedia policies and procedures in an attempt to get administrators to remove all traces of many if not all educational establishments in the Portsmouth area. While the standard of some of these articles is poor, their removal will not encourage those who have an interest in them to make the necessary improvements to bring them up to an acceptable level. Deletion would also defeat the objective of the Wiki Schools Project, as the majority of articles it deals with are of this type, and more notable education establishments articles are with other projects, such as Wiki Universities Project. Information. ISP NTL a British ISP has a block of IP addresses from 82.0.0.0 to 82.31.255.255 with addresses 82.26.96.0 to 82.26.111.255 assigned to the NTL branch at Winchester in the county of Hampshire (the same county as Portsmouth). -- Drappel 16:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 82.26 is the Virgin Media IPs in Portsmouth is any Virgin media customer in the city will have an IP starting with those numbers. such as myself 82.26.107.104 06:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge
I cannot Believe wikipedia has gotten this bad, every school is not notable niether are all the various areas of a city including defunct ones like Kingston the only one in Portsmouth that has some argument for its own article is Southsea and thats weak at best since its duplicated in this article. I am shocked and disgusted how bad wiki has got before i went to Uni i regularly edited Wiki our rule of thumb back then was if its not something you'd find in an encyclopedia don't put it in as far as i can see the Admins have simple been crushed under a wave of articles written by school students about there own school which also violates wiki policies, unless the school is Eton or Columbine its not notable 82.26.107.104 06:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just created a new account because i couldn't remember my old one, the two previous comments are both by me Notability Crusader 06:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you should make sure the two articles are related before adding merge tags. The schools should go if they cannot meet notability requirements. Districts are considered notable under numerous precedents as are places noted in the Domesday book so any discusion to change this should involve the wider Wikipedia community than that on a talk page. Finally, the Portsmouth article is already 30% longer than the preferred length so any merging into the main article would be less than perfect. Nuttah68 06:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE ALL Hilsea is a seperate district of Portsmouth. Firstly the mention of the school accounts for less than a fith of the entire article. Secondly Hilsea is a seperate geographic location. Merging Hilsea would require the merge of every subdistrict and locale article in Portsmouth, which isnt either feasible or needed. Articles exist for people to contribute and build on. Unless an article fails to meet WP:N then it deserves deletion but in this case, geographical locations, villages, towns, suburbs etc are considered notable. As are schools which can establish their notability through either attempts through WP:Attribution, references, external links or through a consensus amongst other editors. In the case of City of Portsmouth Boys' School the article was nominated for AfD but was kept. I suggest that you look at school articles that have relatively little information, no references and no external links. Those are schools that would do better merged with the Portsmouth article - or a new article, with a list of all schools within Portsmouth. Finally I do not agree that admins have been crushed under a wave of school articles and as you yourself are not an admin, I think you shouldnt assume to presume their exact thoughts on a subject.LordHarris 08:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * COMMENT I have discovered that merge tags have been placed on every article to do with Portsmouth locations and schools. That information would triple the size of the current Portsmouth article. Firstly I think its extremely difficult to establish a consensus to merge so many articles (to see them all check the contributions of user and the i.p user above). In the case of location articles I agree with Nuttah68 and think that the merge tags should be removed immediately on all sub districts etc. As for the schools I think they each warrant special attention and perhaps the schools should be looked at for merging, one at a time. In this current mass merge state, which appears more like a guerilla action over a desire to see a majority of articles associated with Portsmouth deleted I think we would all do well to ask help from an admin to assist in this now massive merge situation LordHarris 08:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons above - merging all these articles would result in either a loss of information, or a far-too-lengthy article. Non-notable articles should be deleted per our policies but frankly, I don't see many. The notability of schools for inclusion in Wikipedia should be subject to centralized discussion, but at the present time they'd be likely to survive AfD. Note that Notability Crusader has tagged suburbs of Southampton in a similar manner. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE ALL This request for a merge would be detrimental to the inclusiveness of Wikipedia and appears to be one more shot in a guerrilla war being waged by an 82.26.xxx.xxx bandit who has been attempting to cause confusion and doubt with regard to the city of Portsmouth, for reasons not currently understood. In addition to this merge request various schools have been linked back to the Portsmouth main page in an attempt to hide their existence. This is not a simple merge suggestion but an attempt to have Wikipedia eat itself.  -- Drappel 11:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasons above, Southsea is a separate town. The fact the guy suggesting these merges isn't even registered speaks for itself.Cloudz679 15:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - If this went ahead this would mean some articles which have been tagged with "high" or "mid" importance would be merged. Schools this important should have their own article, though I agree that a few of the less important mentioned school articles perhaps should be deleted or merged, though I am also concerned that doing so could make the article to long in the longrun. Camaron1 | Chris  16:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good enough concensus to now remove the merge tags. I might be persuaded that some or all of these articles should be merged into an Education in Portsmouth or Schools in Portsmouth article, but suggesting they should be merged into this one shows a complete ignorance of the way Wikipedia works, and how to write good articles about cities.  Joe D (t) 21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the consensus is that the merges to schools/districts in Southampton and Portsmouth suggested by Notability Crusader (contributions) and 82.26.107.104 (contributions) while the proposer was trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, should not take place and in the absence of any other apparent removal action, I shall remove them. -- Drappel 07:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks as though this debate has been closed now, but just a quick comment should the issue arise again - strong oppose merging geographical places into this article - all places are by definition notable - and weak oppose to merging in the school per Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. In any case, such a mass merger of articles should be dealt with through the AfD process, not by merger tagging. Cheers, DWaterson 21:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A Day is not a consensus, niether is it a vote. none of the school are important enough for their own article, the Southampton Article would be a much better model to follow. you seem to forget Wiki is for the whole world and if its not even nationally notable then it doesn't deserve to be here. you seem to claim i'm vandal, this is not the case having returned from Uni and now working at Portsmouth city council i had intended to improve the article, which is pretty bad, you claims mens rea upon are clearly a violation of wiki policy. Suburbs of cities or interior postal regions such as Buckland are not notable, schools that have no national or international recognition are not notable its simple. very few cities have a mention of there secondary schools compare it to the Article on New York which was always the gold standard of city articles for a comparsion, can you offer any actually evidence for any of there notability? Notability Crusader 10:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're claiming a lot of knowledge of Wikipedia policy but demonstrating that you actually have very little. Please read WP:N carefully for a start. Waggers 11:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion lasted a lot longer than a day, and consensus was not established for a merger, please read WP:Consensus. Camaron1 | Chris 14:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

heres the information on Somerstown, Somerstown is a residential area of the city of Portsmouth in the English county of Hampshire.

The area was developed during the 1820s, on land owned by Mr Somers, and was heavily bombed during World War II. After the war, the majority of what remained of the area was demolished to make way for social housing.

Somerstown is also the name of a profanity-ridden, "lairy", hip-hop outfit based in Somerstown, Portsmouth.

isn't that useful, southsea is essentially a copy of the portsmouth article. I'm going to make some bold edits tonight, to refocus the article on the city rather than just a list of stuff about the city. Notability Crusader 10:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Weird use of images
At present in the history section, we have: Is it me?! Waggers 08:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Early history of the area" illustrated by the ultra modern Spinnaker Tower
 * "Growth of the city" (12th-14th century) illustrated by HMS Warrior (1860)
 * "War with France" (14th-16th century) illustrated by the modern Gunwharf Quays


 * I see what you mean, I think some of the pictures need to be rearranged to their relevant sections or removed. Camaron1 | Chris 15:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the same thing it is a bit bizarre, can't photos of the Portchester Castle, the round tower or southsea castle and the victory be used respectively? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.244.239 (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Better Images
Portsmouth City Council has recently released a bunch of Images of the city etc, for free use, though they still hold the copyright. http://www.mediastore.portsmouth.gov.uk/viewallimages.aspx


 * "Images are free, but require a credit to Portsmouth City Council." That's not totally clear which licence tag should be used, but I suppose would catch it. DWaterson (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added some pictures that better suit the content of the section Old Pompey (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Spinnaker
I thought someone owned the copyright of the Spinnaker's image? are those Images allowed under the copyright policy?


 * It should be OK under the United Kingdom's broad freedom of panorama laws. See here. DWaterson (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Gunwharf Quays and Cascades Shopping Centre into Portsmouth
The above merge has been propsed by Notability Crusader. Note that WP:MERGE instructs "After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page". Notability Crusader has yet to do this; if no reasons supporting a merge are forthcoming within 24 hours (from any user), I'll remove the merge tags. Waggers 11:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I may actually support one of these. I oppose merging Gunwharf Quays, but unless somebody can expand the Cascades article with encyclopaedic info, I will support its merger into the Shopping/Economy section of this article (those four sentences can be cut down to one or two of actual encyclopaedic content).  Joe D (t) 11:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on that. Waggers 11:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support Cascades for the reasons above, strong oppose Gunwharf. Very notable in its own right. DWaterson 12:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with the above. Unless Cascades Shopping Centre is expanded it can easily be merged. Gunwharf Quays is not long either, but this article (Portsmouth) is already to long, so I would oppose a merger. Camaron1 | Chris 14:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge of Gunwharf Quays as I think theres too much there to merge with the Portsmouth article, which is already too large. However I Support the merge of Cascades Shopping Centre - as there is little there to justify a seperate article. LordHarris 19:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Time has now passed since this discussion has started. Since support for the merge of Gunwharf Quays has shown to be nearly non-existent, I have removed all the relevant merge tags for this. However those for the merge of Cascades Shopping Centre remain for now. Camaron1 | Chris 18:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the original proposer has not commented recently and that there are only weak support for the merge I think the merge tags should be removed? They have been there for a month. LordHarris 20:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead, there's no consensus here on a merge. Cheers, DWaterson 22:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. LordHarris 11:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Since the original proposer has not commented recently..." - in fact, Notability Crusader hasn't made any contributions at all since 11th April. No bad thing, if you ask me. Waggers 11:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I think I am quite happy with the results of this discussion. Merger of the Cascades Shopping Centre article was an interesting possibility, but might not have been a good idea in the long-run as this article is already to long. Camaron1 | Chris 13:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. Based on WP:PAPER, it makes more sense to leave it as a short article in its own right than to make a long article even longer.  Besides, I'm sure there's a lot more information that can be added to both shopping centre articles. Waggers 10:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dubious referencing
Anon IPs 82.26.106.121 and 82.26.111.210 have in the last few weeks made a number of potentially controversial additions to the article, and apparently provided sources to support them. However, these "sources" are so vague and meaningless, along the lines of or as to not constitute reliable sources in their current format. Claiming that "Portsmouth City Council" is a verifiable source for saying that "Doyle and Murphy are extremely common [names] in Portsmouth" just does not cut the mustard. We need detailed factual evidence - I mean, who at PCC said that? When? In what context? Was it a qualified statistician, or a bin man, or a secretary, or what? To keep this article in good order, I think we need to treat these sources with some scepticism. DWaterson 21:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also this has not been helped by an addition to the education section over the last month which, apart from being frankly ungrammatical, seems to concentrate largely on a possible sectarian rivalry between two schools which is not notable. An earlier version of this paragraph should be restored. Hyperman 42 00:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Portsmouth fc 05.jpg
Image:Portsmouth fc 05.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Proper photos of Victory
I've requested photos over at Requested pictures, but I thought I might do it here as well. I'm looking for good, reasonably high-quality photos of the interior, especially the tables between the cannons and the kitchen areas. Some pics of the exterior that are of a higher quality than most of the current ones would be good as well. And whatever you do, turn off the date-setting option of your cam...

Peter Isotalo 16:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Economy agriculture
is fishing included under this heading? since a decent sized fishing fleet does operate out of portsmouth Capt Jack Doicy (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarence Pier
the recent addition of clarence pier feels like advertising, as i've never know it to be particularly famous except for a poor safety record, and that is only gossip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.101.29 (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

City Status
the recent edits by Lozleader have stated that Portsmouth wasn't a city till 1920s, yet i remember when was a kid attend a street party for portsmouth 800th year as a city, can anyone clarify whats actually the correct date? it seems odd that the city council would spend all that time and money celebrating the wrong date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.105.60 (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume that would have been to celebrate the founding of the settlement which later went on to achieve city status, rather the founding of the _city_ itself. 1926 is the correct date for the actual grant of city status. DWaterson (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know when you were a kid, but if it was in 1994, then they would have been celebrating the 800th anniversary of Portsmouth's first charter (as a borough), granted May 2, 1194 by Richard II. City status was definitely only granted in 1926:

London Gazette Issue 33154 published on the 23 April 1926 p.2776 Whitehall, April 22, 1926. The KING has been pleased, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the 21st instant, to ordain that the County Borough of Portsmouth shall be a City and shall be called and styled "The City of Portsmouth", and that the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the said Borough shall be one body politic and corporate by the name and style of "The Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Portsmouth".

Lozleader (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)