Jump to content

Talk:Sussex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Graham87 (talk | contribs) at 10:23, 6 February 2024 (Reverted edit by Iljhgtn (talk) to last version by Cewbot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dispute

RE: Addition/deletion of external links

Parties involved

FujitsuBoy and User:Steinsky

Reason for dispute

Removal of my external links (declared as "spam" or "vandalism"), and addition of external links in breach of Wikipedia guidelines; e.g. http://www.britishcounties.org/sussex/

Steps taken thus far

I have e-mailed Steinsky in the hope of quietly resolving this dispute but with no reply.

As per Wikipedia:Talk_page and Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution this is my next step to resolving the dispute. I will also inform the Association of Members' Advocates. I have also provided a suitable edit to this and other Wiki pages in the hope of avoiding taking this dispute further.

FujitsuBoy 11:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me e-mailing you regarding this. From what I understand disputes on Wikipedia are not uncommon!

I've spent the last couple of months working on the new web site "iDevon", as you can probably imagine a site of that scale takes a lot of work, especially with that much original content (over 3,000 local businesses listed and growing). Add on top of that our value-added services, and you're looking at a (what I would consider) a genuinely useful site for residents in Devon, and hence worthy of a link from Wikipedia.

Before adding the link I was very careful to check through Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly those on "how not to be a spammer" (I'm sure you're well versed on the topic, but just in case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam). Now on the surface of things I cannot see where these guidelines have been broken, or even touched upon.

I'd be interested to hear your point of view. I'm a web developer with a true interest in helping the Internet grow without much patience for spammers and vandals. But when one works so hard on a new site to have it flippantly declared as "spam", well... I'm sure you can see my point of view.

I look forward to hearing from you.

See Talk:Hampshire where these sites and the spamming has been discussed before, and the History of various English county pages for the record of past spamming. Joe D (t) 22:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History

It seems very odd that the section called history - which is in my opinion far too long and, without subheadings, very difficult to read - has a note to see the "main article". Turning to that what should we see? exactly the same as this one! What is the point? A simplified version is required here, and the "Main article" revised Peter Shearan 07:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely deleted it and just left the reference; should anyone wish to put in a potted version they are of course welcome to do so Peter Shearan 14:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In addition the Geography section has some odd phrases: the opening sentence, for example, talks about it being "not wholly on the southward slope" - who said it was? and what southward slope is that? The Forest Ridges are only the southern part of the Weald which is far the most important: no wonder there is no article about them, although this article makes a lot of them. The ancient Wealden Dome across southern England produced, and as a result of erosion on softer rocks, a parallel series of high and low land. Therefore mention must be made of the Vale of Sussex between the Downs and the Weald - the latter is not immediately north of the Downs as the article states. The Forest Ridges are not a watershed, either: if they were then rivers would start and flow both sides of it (1). The North Downs lie between the Thames and Sussex: so the only tributary of it in the county is the Medway.

(1) although the eastern Rother does flow from the northern slopes of the divided Weald, but flows between the two arms of it!

The rivers which breach the South Downs all began on the Weald before erosion took place. As the Dome diminished the effect of erosion through the chalk meant that each of the rivers had its own exit to the sea: apart from the Rother, which lay in an eastward-facing valley of the Weald and flows now into what became the English Channel.
The sea has had a tremendous impact on the coast of Sussex. Apart from cliff ends at Beachy Head and Hastings being eroded, and the resulting pebble beaches (PS not all are sandy as the article states: being from Hastings I know that only too well!) to the east of the latter consisting of the flint, tidal action (and particularly the disastrous 13th/14th century tides) have succeeded in blocking river mouths, and producing large marshland areas - including those in the west around Chichester. I'm not sure about rising land: I thought the south-east of Britain was actually sinking!

Peter Shearan 08:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In view of my comments above, and since the Geography chapter was an example of a mass of information poorly presented, where no logical geographical sequence existed; and where part of it was History not Geography; I have rejigged it with appropriate sub-headings. E&OE Peter Shearan 14:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am now tackling the section headed Climate and agriculture. Why are these two linked, especially when there are only two topics in the latter part: the borough-English bit (note no article); and fishing. Where is the agriculture? Peter Shearan 16:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's class

I am currently searching for any grammatical errors in the article; trying to fix it and impropve the thing to Good article-status. Randalph P. Williams 08:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 800 km, use 800 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 800 km.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 700 ft.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: isn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, MortimerCat (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dry Valley

I removed the following paragraph as it did not make sense.

Dry valleys are a feature of the Downs. One in particular, known as Devil's Dyke, north-west of Brighton, is a popular tourist and outdoor sports venue, although it isn't a "dry valley". It was created by geological action.

It mentions dry valleys on the Downs, a statement which does need elaborating on. It does this by citing an example which, as the statement confesses, is not a dry valley. MortimerCat (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this article about?

Yes, I know its about Sussex! My question is what should go into this article, and what goes into the East/West Sussex articles. Should the East/West just concentrate on the items relevant to them, and any shared items go in the Sussex?

For example:

  • Towns and villages to go in East/West, removed from Sussex.
  • Antiquities in the East/West, removed from Sussex
  • Climate in the Sussex, removed from East/West

MortimerCat (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sussex Flag

There has been a bit of an edit-war with the flag so I am starting a debate.

Flag 1 Flag 2

Flag 1 was the winning entry in a BBC competition to design a Sussex flag. As far as I can tell there has been no official adoption. I cannot find anything relating to flag 2.

See also Flag of Sussex and Coat of arms of Sussex.

My opinion is not to have a flag, it is not an official emblem. MortimerCat (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links: a bit overcrowded now?

I hesitate to bring this up again, after the possible wikilawyering in the post at the top of the page, but very few of the current crop of external links seem to conform to the guidelines. I'm inclined to implement a fairly vigorous trim, subject to other editors' views. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - most of the links can go. In fact, possibly all of them can go (though I haven't evaluated each one as yet).--A bit iffy (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of them met the WP:EL criteria so I deleted the lot. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Druv

means?can geo-map be incl.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven70 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Druv means drove or driven, a stubborn refusal to be pushed around or forced to do things against ones will. In Sussex dialect "Us wont be druv".--Charles (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lancing

I was wondering if anyone could verify the claim of Lancing being the largest village in the UK, only Cranleigh in Surrey make a similar claim, which I believe has been verified? Bluebellnutter (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient woodland

"The Weald ... retains the highest proportion of ancient woodlands in the country." This sounds very plausible, but could do with some evidence: does anyone have a source? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cultural heritage of woodlands in the South East. Section 2:The cultural heritage of woodlands in the High Weald AONB - Forestry Commission book by Nicola R. Bannister available online, see page 14 for detail.Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

an the indefinite article

We have been having a dispute whether it should be a historic county or an historic county.

An is used before nouns or adjective noun combinations beginning with a vowel sound and a is used before nouns and adjective noun combinations beginning with a consonant sound.

eg: an hour and a half

Note that with most adjectives and nouns beginning with the letter h, the h is pronounced, making it a consonant sound. Where the h is silent as in honest and hour, these words start with a vowel sound, thus requiring an rather than a before the adjective or noun:

The word historic takes the indefinite article a/an depending upon its pronunciation.

If pronounced is-storic then "an historic". If pronounced his-storic then "a historic".

Both forms are correct, in which case we should stick with what the original editor wrote. ie: an historic county. In any case An historic is the more common form in British English.Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing The Cambridge Guide to English Usage: either is acceptable, with "an historic" regarded as "a stylistic nicety". Through courtesy, otherwise unproductive editors should avoid picking on the original contributor's perfectly correct stylistic niceties. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History??

In the "Saxon Kingdom" section the following is written concerning Aelle.

"He was probably the most senior of the Anglo-Saxon kings and led the ill-fated campaign against King Arthur at Mount Badon."

a) The "probably" is a giveaway that the statement has no foundation. b) Campaigns against a legendary figure do not have a place in a section on "History" - especially with no source!

I will remove this if there is no objection. Doug (at Wiki) 15:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One would expect a bit more about the iron industry, which was important nationally in its day. It just gets a passing mention.Seadowns (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hillaire Belloc night

I followed the link supplied in the reference (thanks) for this new addition, and found that the event was a "bread and cheese supper" for members of local preservation group ("Members £3", non-members £5"). It doesn't seem encyclopaedic or notable, and I propose a revert. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the link should be kept. It shows the cultural legacy of Belloc's work on present day Sussex, I doubt you would be able to find any other authors remembered in such as way in the county. Not sure the relevance of the prices here - it costs money to run, the organisers need to cover their costs and it's open to all (whether a member of the group or not). Peetred (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mass blanking

This edit removed five sections from the article, suggesting that they "more properly belonged" elsewhere. If this item is to have any claim to be a comprehensive account, it can't be left without a mention of industry. If dealt with elsewhere, a summary needs to be here, with a WP:SS link to the subsidiary article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this article should mention industry and local economy. Most of text that was moved was concerned with historic industries going back several centuries and for that reason I think it is better included in the History of Sussex page. I have added a new section for the Sussex economy to the Sussex page - please feel free to add to it. Peetred (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First ever Brighton Wiki Meetup

You are invited to the first Brighton Wiki Meetup which will take place at The West Quay, Brighton Marina Village, Brighton BN2 5UT on Sunday 28 April 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Brighton topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

The coordinates that I've added are approximately on the border between the modern counties of East Sussex and West Sussex and positioned very approximately halfway north-south in the historic county. Ordinarily, the coords might go on the county town, but there are at least three arguable claimants for being the county town of historic Sussex (Lewes, Chichester, and Horsham, in descending order of strength of claim). This puts the coords in about the middle of the county and avoids either modern county from having pride of place. (I would have preferred to put the coords exactly on the border at 50°58′47″N 0°02′40″W / 50.979763°N 0.044568°W / 50.979763; -0.044568, but anything more than whole degree coordinates would be far too precise for an area this size.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Population note

If an average household comprised seven individuals at that date, the total population would be 150,759.

This is horrible, borderline OR methodology. As a best guesstimate I can find, Tony Wrigley's paper English county populations in the later 18th century, which follows a number of equivalent studies and I think is available online, gives it a little bit over 100,000 in 1761. From checking various swiss and french sources, the common estimate for a feu is 4.5 to 5.5, maybe 6 (with the note that not every household was submitted to the fouage; some french provinces obviously had a fouage far under its actual population when we see early republican census returns), and even these estimates were often slightly increased by what the french government called "double count" which counted people with multiple residences as separate individuals in each of the communes where they lived. 199.180.97.243 (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is speculation and original research and you are right to remove it.--Charles (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Sussex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Sussex. 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:

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) 00:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

existence

The county no longer exists, even ceremonially, so the whole article needs to be in the past tense.

Latin name

I took this out of toponymy -

The Latin word Suthsex was used for Sussex by Dutch cartographer Joan Blaeu in his 1645 map.[1]

  1. ^ "1645, Latin, Map edition: Suthsexia; vernacule Sussex". National Library of Australia. Retrieved 5 February 2013.

because the link doesn't show the map. I wonder if it needs to be in the article at all, though. Isn't Middle English from Latin? Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a hoax? Suth-, Latin? 'Th' is not used in Latin, it is Greek, theta. If used in Roman script it would be in another language. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second World War defences

@Wilfridselsey: Maps in the relevant volume of the British official history shows clearly that Sussex was well defended by first-rate British and Canadian Army units as late as May 1942: this is obviously logical, as it was the most vulnerable area of the UK to a German invasion or hit and run raids. From May 1942 there was little risk of invasion or raids, and defences were downgraded to second-rate army units. However, this area remained heavily garrisoned from at least 1943 as the Allied invasion forces were built up there. The sources you're drawing on appear to be of lesser quality - for instance, noting that the Sussex regiments were elsewhere is not relevant as British Army units have never been tied to their geographic recruiting/naming areas. I've replaced this with references to the official history. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: - I think that you misread the description. It was about coastal defences, not about forces garrisoned in Sussex at the time. The Canadian engineers helped build the nodal defence system and it was this that was manned by the home guard backed up by the Canadians. It was very specific, you have replaced it with a more general point which I think actually works better. Regards. Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automatic peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. (Note that I've manually added: this appears to be a pretty good article, so I'm putting this here if there's any editors want to improve/expand the article, they can refer to this to see things that could be done.) Thanks, Seagull123 Φ 22:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalization problem

It is apparent to all who take so much as a glance at the edit history that the historical county of Sussex has had a rather... prominent problem with vandalism. We all know why that is, it needs no discussion. The article should probably be locked for now to prevent further separation of the county's name in twain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.179.210 (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it needs to have at least semi-protection because of that. I find it a bit funny that this article isn't already protected because of the name alone. Washing Machine (alt) (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to WP:RPP/I Washing Machine (alt) (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sussex&oldid=1204067506"