Talk:Somerset

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Somerset article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

	Somerset is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 13, 2011.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 26, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed October 29, 2007 Good article nominee Listed January 27, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted June 10, 2023 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Somerset Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. UK geography High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article needs census data. England High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Geography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs

The article says that the area of the Central and Western Mendip Hills was 197 square kilometres whereas the source quoted gives the area as 198 sq km. I think that this probably happened because the area was rounded into square miles and then rounded back by the conversion template. I believe that this should be remedied so I have removed the template and substituted the true value as given in the source. Michael Glass (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that the sources for the information in the article have frequently used metric measures. I am adjusting the information in the article to put the metric measure first as per the source quoted. I am doing this step by step and so while I am doing this there may be some inconsistency in the presentation of measures in the article. Michael Glass (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that the ethnicity is 98.5% white. White is not an ethnicity, it is a colour. I would recommend that someone could find a more appropriate term or omit this reference entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.111.181 (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This terminology is taken from the Office of National Statistics, Neighbourhood Statistics, (based on 2001 census) as cited, which says "Ethnic Group" White: British, White: Irish etc. Therefore I think this is OK.— Rod ^talk 07:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the following sentence proper (British) English? —The ceremonial county of Somerset borders the counties of Bristol and Gloucestershire to the north ... .— It seems a bit confusing to me, but that's probably because in American English (or at least my dialect) it would be in the passive voice —is bordered by—. However, if the current form is standard in the UK, I'll leave it. Also, perhaps it's worth noting that the next sentence uses the passive voice: —It is partly bounded to the north and west ... .—
68.127.136.70 (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with it (but I may be biased as I may have written it) but "It" ie the county does border Bristol, Devon etc. If other find this unusual I'd be happy for it to be changed.— Rod ^talk 11:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks for replying. I'll leave it. 68.127.136.70 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Borders" looks perfectly OK to me. I think there is an American tendency to use three words where one will do. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me too. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also see no problem, 'borders' is best here as it is. The switch in the next sentence to "is bounded by" (1) avoids repetition and (2) is the natural form, because 'bound', used actively, has a rather different meaning. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Malleus Fatuorum: I'm the one who proposed this, but I've got a different IP address now (and this is my first edit with it). Anyway, I merely wanted to say that, in fact, in American English, "borders" -would- work, but with the opposite meaning. That is, "Somerset borders ... Bristol and Gloucestershire to the north ... ." would mean that Somerset was the northern county. While anyone could easily find out that this was not the case, it seems to me that it would be better to use a form that is unambiguous in both dialects. I should have stated this more clearly with my original comment. However, this article is not the only one that uses this construction, and I will probably bring it up somewhere per WP:ENGVAR and WP:VNE if and when I register an account.

As an aside—and I mean this in the most non-confrontational way possible—your comment kind of stung. I myself consider all varieties of English equally valid, but I know there are those who look down on American English, which saddens me. 68.127.137.246 (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can understand and sympathise with that, but I don't really think that it is a case of looking down on American English, its more of case of "appropriateness". There is a reluctance (put it stronger if you like) to have British (UK) articles changed from British English to American English and I strongly suspect the same response would occur if US articles were changed from American English to British English. However, returning to you earlier point, the problem of a phrase in one dialect of English meaning the opposite in another dialect, seems to be that a variant of False friend that I came across in another article Long and short scales - which is all about the confusion caused by different meanings of the same word. Pyrotec (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, Pyrotec. I'm not advocating the use of American English over British English (and I also don't think you meant that); what I'm trying to do is work within the constraints of different dialects to reduce ambiguity as much as possible. If there were a term in AmE that meant the opposite (or at least something different) in BrE, and there was another term, perhaps lesser-used in AmE, that was nevertheless understandable to both dialects, I would try to get the British term to be used throughout the wiki. Of course, not being British myself, I don't actually know whether "is bordered by" would be understood in BrE. I'd appreciate some feedback from anyone interested. 68.127.137.246 (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have correctly interpreted what I meant to write. Its the "borders to the north" phrase that is the problem. I would not use "bordered by": I might say "Bristol and Gloucestershire lie to the north of the ceremonial county of Somerset", or "the northern borders of the ceremonial county of Somerset are co-defined by those of Bristol and Gloucestershire". Perhaps, like you, I will be accused of using two words when one "will do" (or not as this thread shows). Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know: The Exmoor in the snow used in the climate section (File:SnowyExmoor.jpg) is incorrectly labelled. Its actually taken from County Gate (compare to File:View from County Gate, Exmoor.jpg) and except for the immediate foreground shows Devon - so isn't really appropriate in this article.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankis for pointing this out. In the light of your comment & the fact we already have several photos in that part of the article & we have at least one of Exmoor, I have removed the pic.— Rod ^talk 17:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

refs up to and including no.57 fixed so far Francis E Williams (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks however ref 39 Somerset topgraphy seems to relate to Somerset County USA not Somerset England & doesn't support the 3 facts which use it as a citation.— Rod ^talk 21:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now replaced the Somerset topography reference with 3 separate refs, one for each of the facts.— Rod ^talk 09:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Rod, it was along day on the screen yesterday, the multiple ref. threw me a bit, and the eyes are getting no better.Francis E Williams (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intro states, among other things, "Unemployment is lower than the national average". It seems to me that in compiling an encyclopedia, which (one hopes) will be a lasting work, it might be best to avoid statements about things like current unemployment figures, which could change (and thus be obsolete) overnight. Even something like "Thanks to the seaport, unemployment has historically been lower than the national average" would be better. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I make the comment that the County has traditionally been a place of high employment figures due to its varied resources which historically have included, timber, coal, aggregates, limestone deposits, climate and topography suitability for cattle farming, wool, trading ports, excellent transport links to the Capital, home of the wealthy in our society, the list is very long indeed and would occupy a predominant part of the article. The above simple statement been sufficient for the last Millenium, I`m guessing Wikipedia may not last as long.Francis E Williams (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that that sentence, in the History section, needs rewording. Surely the 18th century was one of "peace", as opposed to war, throughout England? Do we actually need those first 11 words at all? The sentence would be less confusing if it read simply: "The Industrial Revolution in the Midlands and Northern England spelled the end for most of Somerset's cottage industries." Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me if you want to go ahead & remove the "peaceful" comment.— Rod ^talk 10:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The West Country of England has a small minority of Cornish, including Somerset, but are less than 2 percent of the county population. The nearby Cornwall-Devon, England regions are home to this Celtic people, whom preserved their culture and recently the Cornish succeeded in a language revival program restored the Cornish language, reportedly extinct by the late 18th century. Somerset could well be the third county of the nation ofKernewek. 71.102.1.101 (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any reliable sources which report measures of people of Cornish origin in the county. Although, according to the census, it has a high proportion of indigenous British population, compared with the rest of England, with 98.8% registering as white British and 92.4% of these as born in the United Kingdom, you would need some evidence to support any claims about Cornish language speakers etc in Somerset.— Rod ^talk 07:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Mr. Writer don't take this the wrong way but I couldn't help but notice that the book pages for most of the books are missing and given that the article is about a county appears to be lacking real wide reading from books which should be expected of an FA. I'd expected to see a] page numbers b] A fair sized bibliography of books which have been researched to write the best possible article on this and listed under a bibliography. Also the lead is weak, it does not effectively summarize the article. Also what about its architecture and most notable landmarks, I feel there should be an effective summary of this. I would expect to read an article on Somerset and be made aware of its most notable buildings, although a very small number are mentioned in the culture but without any background. What about healthcare and its most important hospitals? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure who you mean by Mr Writer as many editors have contributed, but as the one who has made most edits I'll respond:

• I agree about page numbers. This article passed FAC a long time ago & presumably these were not a requirement then. A bit more notice that the article was to appear as TFA may have enabled this to be addressed. I will attempt to add them for the books I have and will try to get others from the library - however this will take some time & any help would be appreciated.
• There seems to be an implicit suggestion in your comments that books trump all other sources - to the best of my knowledge this is not in wp policy and as long as sources are reliable they can be used. Are you saying that the books which are included in the references should be put into a separate list which many articles do? If so I have never seen the purpose of this (unless each book is used as a reference many times with different page numbers) and again I don't think it is policy - however if you wanted to do this (perhaps using the harvnb system) I would not object.
• What other landmarks do you feel should be included beyond the geological, listed buildings, hillforts, church towers etc already included? or just more emphasis of these in the lead. Alternatively are you suggesting these should be put into a separate section? If so a revision of the guidelines from WP:UKGEO may need discussion.

I'm sure if you wanted to edit the article to fill the gaps you identify your edits would be welcomed.— Rod ^talk 08:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Rod. In regards to sources I'd expected to see something like you see in Tikal or as you've even done in River Parrett, many book notes with the page numbers and then a decent sized bibliography underneath which shows evidence of wide reading. River Parrett is a most excellent article. Yes I would like to see a section on the architecture of Somerset discussing prominent architectural features which may be seen on notable churches, castles,country houses, etc.. Is there any pattern or style of architecture in Somerset which is common etc.. I'd like to see more notable landmarks in Somerset directly discussed. Also I think a section on environmental protection efforts in Somerset, SSSIs and conservation efforts, both natural such as river/lake managements, national parks/reserves and architectural protection. Which bodies are at work in Somerset in these fields. Also how about archaeology. Have there been any notable digs and findings in the country. Are there any megalithic structures/dolmens etc? I would have a go at writing these sections myself but I find it very difficult to write about something regional! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think I see the thrust here & I would point you to: Grade I listed buildings in Somerset (and its 7 sub lists, which are all FL), Somerset towers & List of Somerset towers, Category:Castles in Somerset, List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset, List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset, Buildings and architecture of Bath, Geography of Somerset, Geology of Somerset, History of Somerset, Transport in Somerset, Somerset Levels, Mendip Hills, Exmoor (& others in Wikipedia:Featured topics/Physical geography of Somerset) etc. The balance to be struck is perhaps between giving enough coverage to these topics in a general summary article about the county without going into too much depth.— Rod ^talk 11:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I quite agree. I've always found it very difficult writing about provinces especially in countries such as England because the possibilities are far more massive than more localised articles and you have to make the decision of course to decide what or what should not be included and just how much should be covered and what topics are most important. In my view when there are a massive number of potential sources the task becomes more difficult. Geography and economy sections are amongst its best in my view. Personally I think the history section is too short. Nothing since 1945? I think it should be more comprehensive without warbling. Basically if you could somehow highlight the cream of those architectural lists with some brief info in just a sentence or two about each of the most importanr I think it would make the article a lot better.E.g ....Abbey was built in 1210. It was the scene of a battle in 1467. The Church of ..., noted for its arches, was mentioned in the Domesday Book. ...Hall in Taunton is a good examle of Renaissance architecture in Somerset. You see? I think you should split the culture section into several topics. Architecture section could include those museums you mentioned. I think Sport and Media should have their own sections. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has made a good faith effort to preserve the image by pixellating the label to avoid copyvio. however, i dont think it can be used in this article, as the information id'ing it as somerset scrumpy is now missing.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit naff. I'm going to replace it with a better cider-related image. Argovian (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this is a "featured article" I'm amazed that the nuclear power plants at Hinkley Point are not at all mentioned in this article! The UK's only current nuclear power station project is Hinkley Point C, which will provide the country with a fair percentage of the national electricity supply. Surely these power stations are major employers and a notable contribution of Somerset to the UK economy in the modern-day? Argovian (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. I've now added a paragraph (a shortened version of the lead from the Hinkley Point C article) which also mentions the existing power stations.— Rod ^talk 18:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the adding of the paragraph. Somerset isn't all about cider production! ;) Argovian (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also missing is any mention of either the Avon and Somerset Constabulary or the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service / Avon Fire and Rescue Service.

I'll get round to creating a small emergency services section. Argovian (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the section - not sure if it's in the right place, so feel free to move it about in the article! Also might need some references? (Links to the force/services' home pages perhaps?) Argovian (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure quite where it is best to put it. For consistency the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties can help but the counties one doesn't really include this - perhaps it should be added. Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements does have "Public Services as an optional heading and suggests adding things like water companies etc as well. (and yes it does need references to support the claims.)— Rod ^talk 19:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Drainage ............... in the Middle Ages by the Glastonbury Abbey, from 1400–1770;" seems wrong to me. Surely by the middle of the 16th century, the Dissolution had taken all of any power at all from the Abbey. Because the citation is not online it's difficult to verify what it says, but if it claims that its influence lasted until 1770 it is wrong. I have no information that confirms the date so will leave it to someone who has.Twistlethrop (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably my grammar that is the problem. I think what I was trying to say was that during the Middle Ages Glastonbury was a major player in the drainage. There was another period of drainage from 1400-1770 and then during WWII Huntspill River was added. I don't have the Williams book cited but do have some of his other books. If you look Somerset Levels there is much more detail:

In 1500, there was said to be 70,000 acres (283 km²) of floodable land of which only 20,000 acres (81 km²) had been reclaimed. In 1597, 50 acres (20 ha) of land were recovered near the Parrett estuary; a few years later, 140 acres (57 ha) near Pawlett were recovered by means of embankments; and three further reclamations, totalling 110 acres (45 ha), had been undertaken downstream of Bridgwater by 1660.^[1] In the early 17th century, during the time of King James I, abortive plans were made to drain and enclose much of Sedgemoor, which the local Lords supported but opposed by the Commoners who would have lost grazing rights.^[2] In 1632, Charles I sold the Crown's interest in the scheme, and it was taken over by a consortium that included Sir Cornelius Vermuyden, a Dutch drainage engineer. However, the work was delayed by the English Civil War and later defeated in parliament after local opposition.^[3] In 1638, it was reported that nearly 2,600 acres (11 km²) of Tealham and Tadham Moors were not reclaimed, with a total of 30,500 acres (123.43 km²) being undrained. Between 1785 and 1791, much of the lowest part of the peat moors was enclosed. In 1795, John Billingsley advocated enclosure and the digging of rhynes (a local name for drainage channels, pronounced "reens" in the east and rhyne to the west) between plots,^[4] and wrote in his Agriculture of the County of Somerset that 4,400 acres (18 km²) had been enclosed in the last 20 years in Wedmore and Meare, 350 acres (1.4 km²) at Nyland, 900 acres (3.64 km²) at Blackford, 2,000 acres (8 km²) at Mark, 100 acres (0.4 km²) in Shapwick, and 1,700 acres (7 km²) at Westhay.^[5]

Some of this could be put here but because it tries to cover everything about the county it needs to be in summary form & not dominate the rest of the article.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking a bit more about this Meare Pool could be added (drained 1620-1740 and on into 1730) and possibly work carried out after the Winter flooding of 2013–14 on the Somerset Levels.— Rod ^talk 08:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and it is pronounced like Summer why on earth is it spelt Somer, who's bright idea was that? 87.102.44.18 (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original?? It derives from Somerton - and it was only Le Conque who decides to spell that place as "Sumertone" in his I-Spy Book of English Taxation? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was from the previous name of Somerton which used to be called Sumortūn. 87.102.44.18 (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See English orthography. There was no "original spelling" - the spoken word was spelled in various ways, and with inconsistencies between similar words, until spelling was standardised, which happened after the invention of printing. There is also, now, a clear and evident distinction between "who's" and "whose". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I wonder Who's Last here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I removed this from the lead:

In the English-speaking world, the county is often associated with the famous legends of King Arthur as his kingdom has been speculated to have existed in this region and his historical castle of Camelot has long been associated with Cadbury Castle.^[1][2]

References

1. ^ Jones, Richard (2006). Myths and Legends of Britain and Ireland. New Holland Publishers Ltd. p. 23.
2. ^ May, Andrew. Bloody British History: Somerset. p. 14.

A mention of the myths about Arthur in relation to Somerset may be appropriate somewhere in the article, beyond what is already in the "Culture" section, but surely not in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really in keeping with WP standards. As a general principle notability is always one of the prevailing guidelines in terms of what should be highlighted and emphasized. If a topic is particularly known for something that is supposed to be brought out, not buried. Writing an article about Bran Castle without mentioning Dracula prominently would be non-encyclopedic. Writing an article about Hitler without emphasizing the murders of millions of people would be non-encyclopedic. Writing an article about Monte Carlo without bringing out the gambling would be non-encyclopedic. The point is that if something about a particular topic is what people around the world tend to remember about it, that should be brought out.

--MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The connection with Arthurian legends is not something that is particularly notable for Somerset, a non-fictional county of nearly a million people and actual history spanning over a millennium. Keep this sort of thing out of the lede please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumorsǣte (talk • contribs) 21:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It would be a bit like saying "Dallas is best known as the home of J. R. Ewing.....". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The flint working site does not appear notable on it's own, currently the stub only says it exists. It really should be a redirect to Somerset Ifnord (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest it would be more suitable to merge to Porlock the parish in which it falls rather than the wider county article.— Rod ^talk 07:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or, even more specifically, Hawkcombe Woods.— Rod ^talk 18:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge to Hawkcombe Woods. Ifnord (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be nice to have the demography section updated with information from the 2011 census. It's currently still using the 2001 census data. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the Local Government section, the merger of West Somerset and Taunton Deane is covered in the first paragraph, and there is then many about it in the third paragraph, which all needs to be brought up to date, by a contributor who knows the subject. Sjshart (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are plans afoot to vote for merging all five Somerset coucils into a Unitary Authority, again, despite its rejection in 2007. Is this event notable enough for inclusion in this section on this page? e.g. https://onesomerset.org.uk/ hrf (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This older FA does not meet the current FA criteria:

• There is a lot of uncited text in the article;
• currency concerns

• use of the 2001 census
• Local Government is not current as detailed above - It is planned to achieve this on 1 April 2019
• Economy section is dated, with some figures from 2001 and 2007/8;

If these issues are not addressed, the article may have to undergo a featured article review. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the local government section with the current situation relating to Somerset West and Taunton. In the demographics section the population data has already been updated to the 2011 census (according to Somerset Intelligence however the link to 2001 census is still shown. This could easily be updated but the table to the right "Somerset compared" with ethnic, age and employment data is more difficult and may talke some time to find the updated data - can anyone help with this?— Rod ^talk 08:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the agencies that compile that kind of data in the UK, so I'm not sure where to find them, too. In regards to the rest, if what is needed is time (to find data, sources, maybe recruit someone knowledgeable about the area from a Wikiproject who can help), you can be assured that there is plenty of time to work on this article outside FAR. This is just a standard note to show that the article needs work, and to see if someone is interested in improving the article. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've now updated to 2011 census data (will need to be done again when 2021 census data is avaiable). Will look at economy next.— Rod ^talk 10:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Some updates to economy done - let me know if there is anything else you thuink needs to be updated.— Rod ^talk 11:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest a look over this passage and make any necessary updating accordingly. I don't live in Somerset so don't know if Thales Optics are still in Taunton and what the outcome of the dealings with Thales' owners has worked out:

Taunton presently has the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office and Avimo, which became part of Thales Optics. It was announced twice, in 2006 and 2007, that manufacturing is to end at Thales Optics' Taunton site, but the trade unions and Taunton Deane District Council are working to reverse or mitigate these decisions. Cloptonson (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RetiredDuke, Rodw, and Cloptonson: I am following up on this notice. Upon skimming the article, I notice that the history section stops at 1941, there are lots of one-sentence paragraphs, and uncited sections in "Civil parishes" and "Emergency services". Is anyone interested in making improvements to the article, or should an FAR be prepared? Z1720 (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few references to the uncited sections and merged some one sentence paragraphs. Although the history section stops in world war II, more recent changes are covered under "Economy and industry", "Demography", "Local government" etc. I no longer live in Somerset and I am hoping that other editors with an interest in the county may do some more, but if it needs to go to FAR then so be it.— Rod ^talk 15:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw: If, in your opinion, it doesn't meet the FA criteria, I encourage you to bring it to FAR: you have much more knowledge in this article and can speak to its strengths and weaknesses. If you think it meets the criteria, I encourage you to mark it as "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020A. Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I'm following up on this article and I still have concerns that it meets the FA standards. Specifically, there are concerns that the article needs an update in several sections (history, economy) and other sections need a lot more citations (transport). Is anyone willing to update this article, or should it go to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed amending the Infobox (shire county and shire district -> unitary authority and ceremonial county), opening text and Governance sections for all settlements in the former Sedgemoor district to reflect the abolition of the district on 1 April 2023 and the transfer to the unitary authority of Somerset Council. I will continue to do this for places in the remaining three former districts (Mendip, South Somerset, and Somerset West and Taunton).

At some point, though, an editor with the appropriate skills will need to combine all four templates, e.g. "Towns, villages and hamlets in the Mendip district of Somerset, England" to one that is named, e.g. "Towns, villages and hamlets in the unitary authority of Somerset, England" and update the Infobox maps, too.Songofachilles (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, thanks. I notice you have "lieutenancy_england = Somerset" and "unitary_england = Somerset". Having both display "Somerset" is confusing as some may believe they link to the same thing. It would be better if Somerset Council were not redirected. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @10mmsocket. That's a very good point and I agree. It is a very confusing situation, one caused by Somerset Council's choice to name the new authority 'Somerset' when it doesn't include the whole county and the added confusion of there being a ceremonial county also called Somerset. With the remaining former districts I will use Somerset Council for "unitary_england =" and, at some point, amend the ones I did for former Sedgemoor settlements. Help doing this is most welcome! Songofachilles (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that there is precedent for presenting the information in this way in Infoboxes as it has been done for places in Buckinghamshire Council UA. Songofachilles (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have completed amending the Infobox (shire county and shire district -> unitary authority and ceremonial county), opening text and Governance sections for all settlements in the former Taunton Deane district to reflect the abolition of the district on 1 April 2023 and the transfer to the unitary authority of Somerset Council.

This is quite time consuming and help with completing this for settlements in the remaining former districts (Mendip, South Somerset, and Somerset West) would be greatly appreciated! :) At some point, as stated above, an editor with the appropriate skills will need to combine all four templates, e.g. "Towns, villages and hamlets in the Mendip district of Somerset, England" to one that is named, e.g. "Towns, villages and hamlets in the unitary authority of Somerset, England" and update the Infobox maps, too. Songofachilles (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Town of Somerset has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 7 § Town of Somerset until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By-election win of David Warburton’s seat to Sarah Dyke (LD) 2A00:23EE:2580:3F10:5DB8:81C0:A228:38CD (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of May 2022 the County of Somerset comprises its hitherto 4 district councils of Taunton Deane & West Somerset, Sedgemoor, Mendips, and South Somerset. North Somerset and BANES (Bath & North East Somerset) became unitary authorities in 1996. Totallytrustworthy1953 (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgwater seems to be omitted from the list of most popular towns / cities in Somerset despite having a population almost double Frome's. Bridgwater's population is around 41K. Being smaller then Yeovil, but larger then Frome. 141.195.160.151 (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot. Frome was added in an anonymous edit a few weeks ago. I've reverted that. The intro needs to be a brief summary, not a comprehensive list, so the top 3 seems a reasonable limit. Joe D (t) 21:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]