Talk:List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex 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.

Article policies

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

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 12, 2008	Featured list candidate	Promoted

Sussex High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex 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.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Unavailable size data

Just to say that in other SSSI lists where the acreage has been unavailable I have worked it out myself by using an online hectare to acre converter, rather than leaving it blank. Suicidalhamster (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Qst (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSSIs in East Sussex for which articles do not yet exist

Just the following left to create: SP-KP (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackhorse Quarry, Brede Pit and Cutting, Burgh Hill Farm Meadow, Buxted Park, Castle Hill, Brighton, Combe Haven, Dallington Forest, Darwell Wood, Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay, Eridge Green, Eridge Park, Firle Escarpment, Fore Wood, Herstmonceux Park, Marline Valley Woods, Northiam SSSI, Offham Marshes, Rye Harbour, Waldron Cutting, Weir Wood Reservoir, Willingdon Down, Wilmington Downs, Winchelsea Cutting.

That's all of them, as requested. :) Qst (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added Castle Hill to list which was pointing to a disambiguation page. MortimerCat (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added Rye Harbour which was pointing to the village of Rye Harbour. (and struck out those that have links) ++ MortimerCat (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats them all done (if anyone is still watching) and they are are all mentioned in the appropriate parish article too. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

map column

The resource cannot be found.

Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zemliakov (talk • contribs) 03:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map links have been updated. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080705173123/http://www.theargus.co.uk/whatson/walks/eastsussex/hooecircular/ to http://www.theargus.co.uk/whatson/walks/eastsussex/hooecircular/

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East 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) 10:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East 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) 16:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sort problem

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Sort does not work in this table but so far as I can see there is nothing different from other tables I have created where is does work. Can you advise what the problem is please? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, and it works for me. What exactly doesn't seem to work as expected? Huon (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is very strange. When I click on the column headings nothing happens. It must be something to do with my computer but it works in all other lists I have tried such as lists of SSSIs in Surrey and West Sussex. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Works as intended for me. Some columns aren't sortable, though: Photograph, Map, Citation and Description. I tried all others, no problems. You should see the small arrow symbols on the sortable columns. Huon (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Tim riley and SchroCat. I should be grateful if you would look over this article, which has been rewritten since it passed FLC in 2008. Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dudley, It looks good. If I were reviewing it for FL now I'd support. I made one tweak to one of the refs - the fields were the wrong way round. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks SchroCat. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slow! I hope to look in tomorrow. More anon. Tim riley talk 21:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now been through the text in as pernickety a vein as I have at my command, and like SchroCat I can find nothing to frown at. It's right and proper to review the quality of the page given that you have – for which you deserve our thanks – revised it materially since it passed FLC in 2008, but the current version seems to me unquestionably of FL quality. The only quibble I can find is that the 8th column seems too wide at the expense of the 11th, but I'm not well enough up in the layout of tables to know if this could be tweaked. As to the content, I have no criticism at all. A model of its kind. – Tim riley talk 21:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. I have not specified the width of the columns. In view of the great variation in computer screen sizes, the rule as I understand it is to leave it to the browser to determine the width. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]