# Talk:Solsbury Hill

There was a misplaced exchange here that I have moved to the discussion page for the article about the song titled Solsbury Hill. Doonhamer 01:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to put citation in the page because the references for the info on the page is in images that i put on here so it is hard to show that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.251.230 (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 

Aren't they pronounced identically? Rp (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Not by me or those with my accent - Souls bree and Sorlz bree. It is a small sound difference though and when I first heard the song by Peter Gabriel, I did think that it was about Salisbury Hill. 81.106.3.196 (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What else do people think is needed to get this article to meet the Good article criteria?— Rod talk 17:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Has the hill ever been excavated by archaeologists? Add more details on the road protests. And watch the formatting on your references, make sure that titles are in title case and that everything is consistent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The excavations of the 1950s are included (see Dowden refs) + more recent geophysics (Oswin). I will look for more on the turf maze by road protesters. I have attempted to standardise the capitalisation of reference titles. — Rod talk 07:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
If we're mentioning Peter Gabriel, we should also mention that he lived nearby until recently. Wasn't David Dimbleby also a neighbour, and spoke as part of the road protests? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe Peter Gabriel lived in the Wooley Valley which is worth a mention on the Charlcombe article but is  a couple of km west of the hill & nearer to Bath, Somerset. I'm not sure about David Dimbleby but believe his brother Jonathan Dimbleby lived fairly nearby with Bel Mooney. It is a nice area with lots of "celebrities" houses within a few miles. The protests are mentioned at Road protest in the United Kingdom#1979–1997 do you think more is needed here?— Rod talk 19:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it would be helpful to get a picture of Solsbury Hill. The current picture shows a view from the top of the hill, which hardly iconic. Kortoso (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Solsbury Hill. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714144751/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheadername3=Content-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B%20filename%3D297%2F965%2Fnt_acquisitions_dec2011-2%2C2.pdf&blobheadervalue2=abinary%3B%20charset%3DUTF-8&blobheadervalue3=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1349117284549&ssbinary=true to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheadername3=Content-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B%20filename%3D297%2F965%2Fnt_acquisitions_dec2011-2%2C2.pdf&blobheadervalue2=abinary%3B%20charset%3DUTF-8&blobheadervalue3=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1349117284549&ssbinary=true
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) 19:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Solsbury Hill. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714143955/http://www.bacas.org.uk/ArticlePdfs/MS1-13-14.pdf to http://www.bacas.org.uk/ArticlePdfs/MS1-13-14.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheadername3=Content-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B%20filename%3D297%2F965%2Fnt_acquisitions_dec2011-2%2C2.pdf&blobheadervalue2=abinary%3B%20charset%3DUTF-8&blobheadervalue3=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1349117284549&ssbinary=true
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) 19:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

(Re [1] and [2], moved from my user_talk: Andy Dingley (talk))
Hi Andy I reverted back to Bath as per WP:MPN because it states "For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name),". The article is about the hill and not the Roman road. In the same phrase there are references to places that did not exist when the road was built. A reader has to click on the link to discover that a place with this name no longer exists. If you want to keep the old Roman name it needs context such as " the ancient Roman city of Aquae Sulis now known as Bath". Dom from Paris (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The article discusses the hill, but that section is specifically about the Roman context and is not discussing the present. We can tell this because it's captioned "Later history". Also Bath is well described and linked much earlier in the article. This is still a poor change. In particular because there is now no mention of Aquae Sulis at all, let alone a link to it. I would have no objection to stating both, although Bath shouldn't be linked again.
Also this discussion belongs on the article, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Obviously as the editor who changed this I disagree with it being a poor change ( with the exception of the overlinking) mainly because it is supported by guidelines. Also we have an anachronistic sentence because at the time Bath was known as aquae sulis Batheaston did not exist and the Fosse way would have had a Latin name too possibly "via fossa" but the name fosse way seems to be a later invention. I have no objection to mentioning the Roman name for Bath but not as it was because it is confusing to a reader who does not know that aquae sulis is not used today as a placename. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello All
I believe the title is incorrect & should be Little Solsbury Hill as named by the land owners: The National Trust. See also Ordnance Survey
I suspect this has been unduly influenced by the pop song. An internet search including Little returns links to the hill. Searches without, return only links to the song or articles titled with Little. 
The first sentence of the article does name it correctly (which reinforces my suggestion of an incorrect title) but then claims Solsbury Hill is what it's more commonly known as, again incorrectly swayed by Peter Gabriel. Locally it's mostly referred to as just Little Solsbury.
--Dave F63 (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It's about right as it is now. There is some official basis to "Little Solsbury Hill" (although OS didn't call it this before about 1980)[3], but COMMONNAME would be strongly behind "Solsbury Hill". No-one local calls it "Little Solsbury Hill".
I don't know of any Little Solsbury or Great Solsbury Hill.  Has Charmy Down ever been referred to under that name? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
"No-one local calls it "Little Solsbury Hill"." < This is supposition. Wiki:CommonName should be based on the results of expert research, not on listening to a pop song on Gold FM. Dave F63 (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

It’s not in the Cotswolds AONB 82.43.154.142 (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is. See Defra's MAGIC map showing the extent of the AONB. Dave.Dunford (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes it is. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/166570#map=15/51.4091/-2.3325 --Dave F63 (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)