Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sussex

Girls' school in England, founded 1836, closed 2009. Gets a brief mention at Roedean_School#Absorption_of_St_Mary's_Hall, to which I've redirected it for now, but I'm sure it needs an article and have found several sources which are on the talk page of the redirect. I've got no time to create an article right now but someone here might like to have a go. I've also suggested it to the Schools wikiproject.(How did I find it? Anna Campbell is at AfD, I saw it on an alert listing, and I wondered why her school wasn't linked!) PamD 08:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Now see Draft:St Mary's Hall, Brighton. PamD 17:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Editors here will know that a big debate is raging on whether all portals should be deleted. The outcome looks likely to be a stalemate, but it has re-energised editors to support portals more effectively. In helping with this, I came across Portal:Crawley which, sad to say, is a deletion candidate par excellence. It is not even half-finished, has an incomplete introduction, red links and a host non-existent sub-pages. It was started in July last year but the editor has left it unfinished and not done anything anywhere on Wikipedia since either. I'm also concerned that the subject is insufficiently notable to have its own portal. It's not a tourist destination and, as far as I can see, has little of historical or cultural note. But that's my view; if there's sufficient interest to complete and maintain it, then great. I'm a fan of portals, but unless someone offers to look after it, I will reluctantly put it up for deletion. Bermicourt (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

My view: propose it for deletion; among any opposing editors there might be one willing to take it on. As it is, it's not helpful, or encyclopaedic. Tony Holkham (Talk) 07:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Seen by Charles (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have just noticed that Chichester High School, a new school formed from the merger of Chichester High School for Boys and Chichester High School For Girls in 2016, does not yet have an article. I'm not familiar with the area or the schools. Anyone fancy taking it on? Fob.schools (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Proposal to delete all portals. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Sussex is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sussex until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Greetings - For Sussex WP statistics, I added progression, importance pie chart, rainbow. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not sure how active this project is, but any chance of a photo? —— § erial 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Serial Number 54129: do you mean Redlands, West Wittering? If so, you could try looking at Geograph.org.uk, or request a picture on Wikimedia Commons. I'll also add a requested image tag to that article's talk page. Seagull123 Φ 21:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Weald and Downland Living Museum#Cats and navbox re the removal of some categories and a navbox from the Weald and Downland Living Museum article. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi folks, the other month the Sussex Archaeological Society completed a massive volunteer project digitising their annual journal. The Sussex Archaeological Collections is peer-reviewed and covers aspects of the history and archaeology of Sussex. It's available online via the Archaeology Data Service: https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/library/browse/series.xhtml?recordId=1000229

The 'news and notes' sections often contain a few articles but you'd have to click on them to see the titles. You can see a list of the contents up to 2005 on the Society's website, which is handy to cross-reference.

Well worth a browse for anyone interested in Sussex history. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Excellent, thanks Richard. Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have started a project for missing civil parishes at User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. The missing parishes in East Sussex are:

These exists as a redirect only but should have separate articles:

• Ashburnham, East Sussex, the Ashburnham and Penhurst should probably be split and then redirected as "Ashburnham and Penhurst" is not a CP
• Penhurst, draft exists at Draft:Penhurst, East Sussex

A total of 2, see User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes (2)#East Sussex

The missing parishes in West Sussex are:

• Barnham and Eastergate
• Worth, Mid Sussex

These exists as a redirect only but should have separate articles:

• Lyminster and Crossbush
• Woolbeding with Redford

A total of 4, see User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes (3)#West Sussex. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Pinging participants to get more input @Vox Humana 8', Itsmejudith, Hassocks5489, A bit iffy, Paste, Charlesdrakew, Peter Shearan, MortimerCat, Autarch, Freakmighty, Lordmwa, Seafordrulez, JeffreyTBest, Thatmotorwayguy, Kinnerton, Dougatwiki, Seagull123, BoroFan89, Wilfridselsey, Pachyderm16, Tony Holkham, EddersGTI, Polegåarden, and Dorkinglad:. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am not a participant. JeffreyTBest (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Improving the parish pages is important. Many of the parishes around Brighton and Hove have "Notable areas" sections, which document landmarks including natural geographical and biological features. See Fulking, Falmer, Henfield, etc Riparia Riparia (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is a RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Sussex and Yorkshire disambiguators to see if places unique in East Sussex and West Sussex can use just "Sussex" as the qualifier. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi folks! I wasn't sure where to take this, but figured I'd start here, since one of the articles is part of this wikiproject. I believe that the articles Seaford Head and Seaford Head Nature Reserve are about the same entity and should therefore be combined into one article. The articles appear to have been created by @Dudley Miles and @Paste, so I figured I would loop them in, too?

On a slightly separate note, as someone who is unfamiliar with the region, the reason I was nosing around here was that I was unsure about the relationship between Seaford Head and South Downs National Park, since the articles do not mention each other, but they both include pictures of the Seven Sisters, seeming to imply that they both have jurisdiction there? Is the nature reserve a subsidiary of the national park? Partly overlapping? Entirely separate? It seems that there is a Seven Sisters Country Park which is part of the National Park, but I couldn't figure out what the status was here (which seemed like the kind of thing that one should be able to glean from the article).

Thanks! Cleancutkid (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree that they do cover a similar area and should be merged. I must have missed the nature reserve article when I created Seaford Head. I am not clear what area the nature reserve article covers and the source which should clarify is dead. Another large part of the article is unreferenced, and in view of these points I would convert the nature reserve article to a redirect to Seaford Head. I will do this if no one objects.

I assume that they overlap with the national park and the country park, and someone familiar with the area should be able to clarify further. There is a map of Seven Sisters Country Park at [1]. National Park, SSSI and Local Nature Reserve do not run their areas. They are official designations which limit development in specified ways and may overlap with other designations. The country park is run by its own organisation (so far as I know), and all or parts of it may be designated NP, LNR and SSSI. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you go to the National Park website there is a lot of detail about their purpose. Also if you look at the Visitor Map and click the 'things to do' button, on the left hand menu, you will see all the organisations located within it's boundaries, including wildlife trusts/ reserves etc. Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, @Wilfridselsey and @Dudley Miles. Your explanations and links were quite helpful, as I was unfamiliar with these designations in the UK context.

I support Dudley Miles' suggestion of converting the nature reserve article to a redirect. Looking at the Local nature reserve article and related lists, it does seem as if the standard title format is just "site name", not "site name nature reserve", so that would seem to be appropriate, and the sourcing is indeed stronger. Cleancutkid (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Redirect now done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Eddie Izzard#Requested move 15 March 2023 , which is within the scope of this WikiProject. The topic of the discussion is on moving the article due to Izzard's recent name change. Note, I'm making this notification manually as the RM doesn't seem to have been added to the alert list by the bot. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to draw attention to my first article on behalf of the Sussex Project group. It is on Draft:St George’s Church, West Grinstead . The article is currently awaiting assessment. I hope it is of interest to this group. Dorkinglad (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Dorkinglad When you mention an article in a talk page post, please provide a link: people are more likely to go to look at the article Draft:St George’s Church, West Grinstead if you make it easier for them (especially as in this case copying-and-pasting the title of your post wouldn't have worked because of punctuation and spacing problems).

A few quick thoughts on the draft:

• Overall it looks impressive, well referenced, well written (but ref 13 is coming up as "Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation.", and ref 16 looks a bit inadequate)
• You've got a few links to disambiguation pages: here's a paragraph I offer to many editors:

There is an easy way to avoid linking to disambiguation pages: if you go to "Preferences", "Gadgets", and look under "Appearance" you'll see "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" towards the bottom of the section. Select that tickbox, and whenever you Preview a page you'll be able to see whether you've accidentally linked to a disambiguation page.

• The article doesn't currently have a lead. The first sentence could be something like "St George's church is the grade I listed parish church of West Grinstead, Sussex, England." Your opening section seems to be "Setting" followed by "History". And there doesn't need to be a section heading with the title of the article.
• You might like to consider starting new articles in separate subpages (eg User:Dorkinglad/St Georges), so that they have a clear edit history beginning at the beginning, even after they are moved to mainspace, rather than a long history involving previous sandbox uses.
• You seem to have copied references from other sources - the "Retrieved" date should mean "On this date I consulted this web site and it contained the information I am using to support this text", but you have got access dates going back to 2010 and 2012. Have you copied another editor's text, not just the references? If so, please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and attribute the copied text appropriately.

PamD 23:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much PamD for your quick response to the article Draft:St George’s Church, West Grinstead. I have taken your sagacious advice and made the changes to the text as you have advised. The highlighted references (13/16) have been replaced and I have checked thoroughly the access-dates I have used. This article was started some time ago but only in the last two weeks have I really addressed the subject. This included a visit to the church to take notes. It now hasa concise opening summary.

I will address the technical matters that you have highlighted but need time to understand the linking to disambiguation pages. Once again thank you. I now need to wait for a formal assessment which I am advised can take up to three months. Apparently as an expereinced article writer with additional rights I 'm not required to have submitted for assessment. It's a frustratingly long time to have to wait. Dorkinglad (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't really follow the ins and outs of AfC, but as far as I can see this article belongs in mainspace so I have moved it (correcting the curly apostrophe to a straight one) to mainspace, and done a bit more tidying up there. Thanks for a very thorough contribution to the encyclopedia. PamD 11:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

And have added it to St George's Church, a comprehensive list. PamD 11:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the help and encouragement. It's obvious that the next article I write that is pertinent to this group neeeds to come to this site first for advice and review. I may at some stage add an extra section on rhe Rectors of St. George as a number have been notable and have Wikipedia entries. i hope this article is of help to those that are interested. Dorkinglad (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is ongoing at Template talk:Infobox English county#Proposal: remove the ethnicity section which is likely of interest to this project. The original proposal is for straight removal of the ethnicity field from the template; the population field would remain. This and a modified proposal would have the same effect on Sussex. A result of the change, if consented to, is the restriction of demographics, other than population to the local authority administrative sections of the county infoboxes. It has no effect on editors placing reliably sourced statistics in the body of the article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just wanted to let you all know that I have revived WikiProject Brighton and invite any editors to join the project if you are interested! Have a great day, harrz ^talk 22:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

John Maynard Keynes has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! There is a Wikipedia meetup in Brighton on 23 November. If anyone here is able to make it, you would be very welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply