Talk:Ditchling Common
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I am thinking of adding a threats section. It seems factual enough and informational to highlight the history of the area being built on and the risks of the planned housing developing, which will encroach the Common, inadvertently change its character and effect the council's ability to manage the area strictly for conservation and maintaining its rich biodiversity. I will put my proposed section here for comment.
≤== Threats ==
Further threats to the biodiversity of the Common have come in the form of housing developments through the Burgess Hill Neighbourhood Plan.[1] To the west of Pollards Farm, Freckborough Manor and Hope Farm (e.g. TQ 328 186), new housing developments have been agreed that will replace an ancient landscape of irregular, small fields, which were a relic of its medieval enclosure from Freckborough Chase and separated Ditchling Common from the built up area of Burgess Hill.[2]
The development has been justified by extolling the benefit the Common will receive from money given in compensation for this encroachment, but doubt has been cast on whether the lost Freckborough medieval landscape can be compensated.[3] The significant threat to Ditchling Common is that, despite its history and its rich, unique array of biodiversity, it becomes a squeezed, urban fringe common, bearing the additional pressures that proximity to a built-up area brings.
- ^ "Ditchling Streat and Westmeston Neighbourhood Plan". South Downs National Park. 2018.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ Brandon, P.F., 1963. The common lands and wastes of Sussex 54 (Doctoral dissertation, Birkbeck (University of London)).
- ^ Bangs, David (2018). THE LAND OF THE BRIGHTON LINE: A Field Guide to the Middle Sussex and Southeast Surrey Weald. 180 Farlington, Portsmouth: Bishops Printers. ISBN 9780954863821.
Wikipedia is not the place for your comments. References have to support the text, but you are citing a source justifying the plan for your personal opinion opposing it. Comments like this should be in your personal blog if you have one, or in a local newspaper or discussion site. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Dudley Miles, thank you for engaging with this. In principle I agree that Wikipedia isn't a space for comment or opinion. The suggestion is that we provide cited, well-known information of the risks and threats that housing developments put on designated pieces of land that have rich, archaic, natural habitats with unique soil and biodiversity, which need maintaining in traditional, historic ways for their existence and specialness to persist. It isn't an opinion, it isn't a comment, it is well known and cited in text above. I think it would be perfectly encyclopaedic for an article about an SSSI to include the threats it faces. Arguably without it, it isn't as complete or as informational for the reader as it should be. If you agree, I would be very happy for you to word the threats (or risks if it is a better heading) in a way that you feel is neutral, but informative. It is interesting to gather your opinion on the matter too, but when replying, please consider your tone and in particular with reference to our fourth pillar WP:5P4. Thank you. Paolo.oprandi (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- If sources supports your comments, can you please supply full references including page numbers. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- If you were to point me to the the wikipedia polices and guidelines where it says we should supply page numbers that would be appreciated. It doesn't sound like normal practice unless making direct quote from a text. In any case, I will consider your comments, do a bit more research about the particularities of the building agreement and perhaps others may contribute their thoughts as well. Many thanks Paolo.oprandi (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Citing page numbers is normal practice and necessary unless the source is short as readers should be able to check that an edit correctly cites a source, and this is impracticable for long texts if no page number(s) are supplied. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- If you were to point me to the the wikipedia polices and guidelines where it says we should supply page numbers that would be appreciated. It doesn't sound like normal practice unless making direct quote from a text. In any case, I will consider your comments, do a bit more research about the particularities of the building agreement and perhaps others may contribute their thoughts as well. Many thanks Paolo.oprandi (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Distinguish between Ditchling Common SSSI and Open Access Land
[edit]The article currently only relates to the SSSI, however the SSSI only covers part of the area of open access land, also known as Ditchling Common. The extent of Ditchling Common open access land can be found on the MagicMap website (referenced in the article), under the heading Access > Countryside and Rights of Way Act, Section 15 Land (England). Access to the land is covered by Section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925. My suggestion would be to make it clear that "Ditchling Common" can refer to two distinct entities - an area of open access land and (within this) an SSSI. Ed Bohlen (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)