Talk:Hythe (Hampshire)

Hythe

The village of Hythe lies in a pivotal position on the western shore of Southampton Water abutting the New Forest. In the area now known as the Waterside, Hythe is the central village of numerous small communities now vastly expanded by dormitory housing serving the petrochemical industries in the Waterside as well as the City of Southampton. Hythe with its sister communities of Dibden and Dibden Purlieu are now part of the Parish of Hythe and Dibden but until 1913 Hythe was a detached part of Fawley Parish completely surrounded by Dibden Parish.

A HISTORY STEEPED IN SHIPPING AND SHIPBUILDING A Hyth in Old English was a hard, permanent, landing place on a river or sheltered estuary and the position of Hythe clearly fits that description. It is possible that the name was in use as early as the sixth century AD but the first recorded use of the name dates from 1293. In a Parliamentary Roll of that year it is recorded that: The "All Saints" of Hethe juxta Novam Forestam was wrecked and plundered on the Cornish Coast while carrying a cargo of wine from La Rochelle".

The villagers of Hythe were occupied in a mixture of agriculture, fishing and ferrying. During the Middle Ages the size of vessels visiting Southampton increased to such an extent that they could not land their cargoes directly onto the quays. They anchored in the river and the boatmen of Hythe acted as lightermen, transferring the goods from ship to quay. By an act of good fortune or perhaps through careful planning the manor of Dibden was part of a larger manorial holding which included the Town of Wallingford on the River Thames. Wallingford and Southampton had a reciprocal agreement and did not charge each other taxes on goods which passed between the two towns. Those men of Hythe who came under the jurisdiction of the Manor of Dibden were thus able to land goods in Southampton free of tax. This ensured that Hythe and Dibden flourished with a significant number of boatmen trading in their own right until the rights of the "Honour of Wallingford" were extinguished in the 16th Century.

The first mention of a regular ferry occurs when the name Hitheferye appears on Saxton's map of Hampshire in 1575, though clearly the passage had probably been manned since the village was founded.

In 1588 one of the boatmen of Hythe; John Holforde, was commissioned to take a shipload of gunpowder, shot and matches from Southampton out to the Ark Royal; Lord Howard of Effingham’s flagship, during the pursuit of the Spanish Armada. It is uncertain what effect the Civil War had on Hythe but the village did receive some shots from a Parliamentary gunboat while Southampton’s allegiance was in doubt.

By the late 1750s Hythe already had a thriving shipbuilding yard run by George Wadmore. Positioned on the southern edge of the village in what is now Shore Road it had good access to Southampton Water and had a dry dock as well as several slipways. George’s cousin John Wadmore inherited the business and his two daughters married shipwrights who carried on the family business. John’s three grandson’s William, Mark & John Richards continued the family tradition and built small vessels for the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Period. The shipyard continued in various ownership’s and intensities until it was bought in 1927 by Hubert Scott-Paine. After a major reconstruction of the yard he founded a company for the construction of a revolutionary design of power boats. The British Power Boat Company as it was known built initially for the private market but the designs were soon taken up by all three armed services. Hythe became the home of the "little ships" of the Royal Navy, the Motor Torpedo Boats and the RAF Air/Sea Rescue Boats of World War II. With the successful conclusion of the War there was no need for further military vessels to be built and with no civilian market at that time the yard was forced to close thus bringing to an end over two hundred years of shipbuilding on the site.

The Royal Navy Beach Commandos who were trained for the task of making the Normandy beaches safe for the D-Day landings were based on what is now the Ewart Recreation Ground in Jones Lane prior to their sailing. Also in 1944 King George VI visited Hythe in great secrecy just before D-Day. He rode on the Pier train and a commemoration plaque was placed in the carriage soon afterwards. Unfortunately it was removed by a person or persons unknown.

In 1960, The Hovercraft Development Company and Sir Christopher Cockerel, its founder, moved to Hythe. While the original concept and prototype were designed and built in East Anglia it was from its base at the Grove, in St. John’s Street, that basic designs were refined which culminated in the first cross-Channel hover-ferry in 1966.

HYTHE PIER Before Hythe Pier was built, ferry and other boats landing at Hythe used a gravel hard which ran from the land in front of what is now the Drummond Arms out to the low tide point in Southampton Water. Walking along the hard was not easy and travellers often got very wet. Various ideas to improve the situation were suggested and finally construction of the Hythe Pier was started in October 1879. It was opened with considerable ceremony on 1st January 1881. At 2,100 feet (640 metres), this nineteenth century iron pier is one of the ten longest piers in the British Isles. In 1909 tracks were laid for use by hand-propelled trolleys to carry goods and luggage. In 1922 a narrow gauge electric railway opened to take passengers the full length of the Pier. This railway with its original engine and rolling stock is still operational today and an important part of the local transport system to Southampton.

ST JOHNS CHURCH Until 1823 Anglican worshippers in Hythe had to travel to the mother church of the Parish in Fawley or to the church in Dibden. In that year a small chapel was built to serve the local congregation. Accessed from St. John’s Street, it was initially manned by a curate with Hythe not becoming a parish in its own right until 1841. The chapel was really too small for the whole of the new parish and at the first opportunity a new church was built to the rear of the old chapel but now facing into New Road. Consecrated in 1874, the church still provides an impressive backdrop as you enter the village from the south. (WT-en) Nzpcmad 23:37, 3 October 2004 (UTC)

A little help please

Swept in from the pub

Hi! I have created three new pages Holbury, Fawley and Calshot. However, I do not believe that these pages are up to scratch. Can I have a hand updating them and improving them please? 82.3.185.12 09:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

They're little stubs. Please read Wikivoyage:What is an article and have a look at Wikivoyage:Small city article template. Do any of them have enough attractions of any kind that are interesting enough for them to merit their own article? This travel guide is different from Wikipedia, which as an encyclopedia covers any village, regardless of whether it's of any significance or interest to visitors. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are important otherwise I wouldn't have created them. two of them have the largest oil refinery in the uk, and the other one has a very famous beach. 82.3.185.12 09:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

You're probably the best person to expand these articles. I haven't even heard of these places. If you can add information about what to see and do there, where you eat and where to stay, we can help with things like linking and formatting. Welcome to Wikivoyage Ground Zero (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Does the oil refinery have a visitor centre? Can travellers go on tours of the site? Otherwise it is only of interest if there is a lot of business travel to the site (other than mentioning it in the county article so that visitors can avoid the area). Looking at a guide book to England, none of these places appear in the index. Calshot has a castle and the beach, so it may be of interest to travellers. I think that the three articles should be merged into one. AlasdairW (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Alasdair, let's see what the new contributor can add to these articles first, and then decide whether to merge them. If there isn't much to add, then sure. But if the new contributor has a lot to say about these places, then no. Ground Zero (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

To get things started I have added the template and some listings to Calshot. AlasdairW (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The user left me a similar message to the above, which I replied to, but they haven't edited since. Most people with a genuine interest in expanding Wikivoyage don't create three stubs, ask for help twice and then immediately go quiet when they receive some.

In the event they don't come back in the next day or two, I would propose merging Calshot to Hythe (Hampshire) and speedy deleting the other two. You can't visit Fawley oil refinery. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't expect anything to come of this, but its only been 4 hours since the above message was posted. 4 hours. If there is a slim chance that this contributor can, with a little encouragement, expand these articles, it is worth waiting at least a few days instead of jumping on their articles moments after they were posted. Ground Zero (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I refer you to my above comment.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

And I also know the area well enough to know the places don't merit their own articles, but that a couple of things would make decent additions to Hythe.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The tone of the discussion, including your comments, and its focus on merging/deleting these articles instead of building them is not supportive of a new contributor. This is the sort of thing that scares newbies away. We should focus on encouraging newbies. This is an individual we're dealing with, so we should not just assume that they are not like the "most people" you describe above. Ground Zero (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Why did you assume I was talking about this user when I said most people? Maybe you're assuming bad faith on my part, which to be fair is understandable given how antagonistic I normally am, but in this case I'm just planning for either eventuality, in the knowledge that it's a busy time of year when these (currently orphan) articles can easily slip my or others' minds.

If the IP is interested in growing Wikivoyage, he or she will come back. In this event, I've offered to help, and the offer I made in good faith still stands. But in the event that (s)he doesn't, you all know what my proposal is. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I did conclude that you were talking about this user because you wrote "Most people with a genuine interest in expanding Wikivoyage don't create three stubs, ask for help twice and then immediately go quiet when they receive some." This user wrote three stubs and asked for help. I don't know if they "immediately went silent", or just went out for a walk or to work, as people do. (I did leave a "not" out, and have added in to my comment above in italics.)

I am not assuming bad faith on your part, because I have always found you to be a constructive and collaborative editor. And I don't see you as being antagonistic at all. In this case, however, a lighter touch is warranted. This discussion will remain in thei pub for a month, according to our archiving protocol, so it won't be forgotten, and there is no rush to purge or even plan to purge these articles. Ground Zero (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

You concluded wrongly, but as the author of the sentence that is more my fault than yours. I suppose there is no rush. We'll have to disagree about my tone, which is fine as long as we're all assuming good faith.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I'm back and I have improved them, however I have done all I can do, merge them with Hythe if you like. 82.3.185.12 09:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Calshot is a distinct settlement and has several listings so presumably should be kept (if it has enough) while the other 2 are suburbs of Hythe so unless there's significant points of interest it can just be merged. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: they are not part of Hythe, they are just near it. 82.3.185.12 12:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Fawley merge

See here for more details. 82.3.185.12 19:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Holbury with Fawley

moved from Talk:Fawley

moved from Talk:Holbury

Do you think this page should be merged with Fawley? 82.3.185.12 10:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you local to the area? If so, do you know what more can be added to Fawley than is currently there, in terms of attractions, places to eat, pubs, accommodation...? Because if, through lack of these things, Fawley is destined to be a very short Outline article, even with content merged from Holbury, they would both be better off merged into Hythe (Hampshire), in my opinion.

@Crouch, Swale, Ground Zero, AlasdairW: your thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Crouch, Swale has already responded to your question here. 82.3.185.12 10:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the decision should be made by people with local knowledge of the area, which I don't have. If user:82.3.185.12 is planning to expand the articles, then they should be given time to do so. If people with local knowledge are okay with merging, then I have no objection. Ground Zero (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but as there are two potential destinations for merging, and the two people with local knowledge have different opinions, it might be helpful if you stuck around (or, more accurately, added this to your watchlist). There's no rush to make a decision.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me what the two proposals are. Are they:

A. Merge Fawley and Holbury

B. Merge Fawley and Holbury into Hythe?

A seems quite obvious as they are close together. The Wikipedia articles for Fawley and Holbury don't mention any connection to Hythe. Is there a reason to merge them in beyond proximity? I guess if there really isn't anything in either place, it would make sense. I don't have a strong opinion on this. Ground Zero (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Those are the proposals as I've understood them. My reason for merging to Hythe is largely proximity, but also a lack of things to see or do in the two articles concerned. I don't know whether there are other kinds of potential listings in Fawley or Holbury (Sleep, Eat etc), but if there are we could try them as a combined article and see how it goes. I suppose a third option is to merge 'up' to New Forest.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@ThunderingTyphoons!: Fawley and Holbury are not part of Hythe, so that would not be the best idea, Fawley is quite a small place so doesn't require its own article and it is way too small to be part of the New Forest article so none of the proposals are ideal. 82.3.185.12 12:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Fawley and Holbury indeed aren't part of Hythe but the cap is small so it could still potentially be merged. Fawley parish includes both Holbury (and Calshot for that matter) so merging Holbury with Fawley probably makes sense. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikivoyage articles are organized on the basis of what is most useful for travellers, and not along municipal boundaries, which change from time to time. If there is not enough in a village to warrant an article, andvit is likely that someone visiting there would be visiting from a nearby town, then merging the two makes sense from the traveller's perspective. Ground Zero (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that Fawley and Holbury should be merged, as they are a short walk apart. I wouldn't merge them into Hythe yet - let us wait a few months to see what turns up. It may be more useful to merge them into Calshot, which at the moment has a reasonable number of attractions, but nowhere to sleep. AlasdairW (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm okay with Alasdair's idea.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. User:82.3.185.12? Ground Zero (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed (at least for Holbury into Fawley and maybe both into Hythe) although municipal boundaries are less important here they often provide a logical say to organize things when a municipality contains other settlements as well but those don't have enough things in them its best to merge with the municipality. In those case most people going to Calshot, Fawley and Holbury will have to go through Hythe anyway so that provides additional reason to have one article (at least for the 2nd and 3rd). Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Okay then, I have merged Holbury and its talk page with Fawley. At the moment, I still don't think the resulting article is particularly helpful, but I'm happy to wait and see how it might develop.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, although it probably needs developing more it seems better than before, both places seem to naturally go well in a single article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale, Ground Zero, AlasdairW, ThunderingTyphoons!: I have merged Calshot with this article, as I have explained here. I have also added Template:Merge to the top of the article to propose a merge to Hythe. I agree with the reasons for merging this article that were proposed above. 82.3.185.12 19:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to leave the decision to people who know the area. It 8s good to see our coverage of this area being so much improved. Great work! Ground Zero (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I was coming round to the idea of Calshot being its own article, even if the other two were merged into Hythe. However, I just looked on Maps for potential sleep listings for Calshot, and there's only one campsite, so merging all three to Hythe would probably work best.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with either but if Calshot is merged and Fawley is kept separate (which it isn't) then Calshot should be merged with Fawley not Hythe but its fine anyway since Fawley is also no longer separate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, do that then. 82.3.185.12 16:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@ThunderingTyphoons!: done. 82.3.185.12 16:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Good work.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Banner Photo

Hythe Pier

Calshot Beach Huts

• Following the recent very quick mergers, there are now two potential banners that could be used on this article. Currently we are using Hythe Pier, but I think that the picture of the Beach Huts at Calshot is better. Should the banner be changed to Calshot Beach Huts, or is there a better alternative? AlasdairW (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I like the Calshot Beach Huts shot. Ground Zero (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I also think the Calshot Beach Huts shot looks better, however the article is about Hythe and it does not mention that it also covers Calshot. 82.3.185.12 07:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@AlasdairW, Ground Zero: Do you think that I should change it to the Calshot Beach Huts shot? 82.3.185.12 19:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great. AlasdairW (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please! Ground Zero (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@AlasdairW, Ground Zero: Done 82.3.185.12 19:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)