Talk:Eastbourne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Image:UK map icon.png This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to places in the UK. If you wish to contribute you can visit the project page where there are resources & guidelines, to do lists and discussions.
Portal:United Kingdom
 United Kingdom Portal
This article has been rated "B" on the Wikipedia Version 1.0 quality scale.

On the project page you can find detailed guides on how to write about counties and settlements, as well as where to find statistics, references and other useful things. Additionally, the following have been identified as specific improvements this article needs:



  • Cite sources! I haven't read through the article properly, but I think adding sources is all you'd need to get Good Article status.
  • Trivia sections, lists and single sentence paragraphs are frowned on.
  • Possible physical geography section, since the surrounding landscape and geology is famous.

Contents

[edit] Summarised old discussion

For neatness, I will summarise the previous discussion:

  • Q:Should this particular Eastbourne take priority over others (see Eastbourne (disambiguation)) in terms of naming?
  • A:Yes. It is older, more populous, more notable in terms of cultural references, politics, history, and sport. No dissenting opinions have been expressed as yet.

- IMSoP 19:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable additions

I have removed the following addition from the article, because I'm not sure of it's veracity:

It is also famous for having over 35 millionaires and is the birth place of jack dee (comedian) Toploader (band) Some of the biggest ethinc minorities are, Filipinos, Chinese, Greeks, Italians.

  • I've never heard of Eastbourne being "famous" for its number of millionaires, and "over 35" seems odd without a reference to back it up; a quick search on Google did turn up this PDF claiming 114 millionaires, although the stated postcode (BN20) is actually composed primarily of the rural area to the West of Eastbourne (it touches Old Town, including my house, but I doubt that's where the millionaires are).
  • According to the bbc.co.uk Guide to Comedy, Jack Dee was born "in Petts Wood, near Orpington, south-east of London"
  • Toploader really did come from here, they used to work at the Chasely Trust situated on South Cliff Avenue, but as one-hit wonders, do they merit a mention? Perhaps if the article gets rearranged a little we could accomodate them somehow...
  • The 2001 UK Census lists Chinese as the most significant ethnic minority, with just 443 members (which I make roughly 0.5% of the population); there may well be a handful of Filipinos, and I personally know Greeks, Germans, and Iranians, but listing all those would IMHO present an incorrect picture of a town which is (by my calculations on that census data) 96.6% white, with no one group occupying the remainder.

As ever, any comments welcome. - IMSoP 13:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

* Should the fact that Roger Moore used to live there and Eddie Izzard attended Eastbourne College be included?? - swedishdave
  • "Eastbourne was recently found to be the 52nd most dangerous place to live in England and Wales in the study "Urban Crime Rankings" (2006). However, as there were only 55 towns in the study, Eastbourne is also the 4th safest place to live." whoever wrote this is a genious! Swedishdave 12:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I've removed that sentence, as coming 52nd out 55 really doesn't mean much - I mean, would Eastbourne still have been 52nd out of 155? Or would it have been 152nd? - IMSoP 13:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
my point exactly, i didnt want to remove it myself because i found it funny. well done. Swedishdave 00:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure where to put this...
in the trivia/film secion part of pear harobour was filmed here... this was a major film. i would add it myself but i cant remember how to do it (havent used wiki in a long time!!)oh, and thanks for adding my roger moore fact in!Swedishdave 00:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tourist PR talk

OK, I know that Eastbourne is part of the tourist industry, but this article tends very much towards PR: But then that may be because I am a Hastings man myself? Peter Shearan 09:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note of Additions

  • I added the local free magazines website (East Magazine) to the links section. - swedishdave

[edit] Hastings Direct Tennis Competition

The Hastings Direct company isn't based in Hastings, it is actually based in it's neighbouring town of Bexhill-on-Sea.

Freshprince 13:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh please! not it's neighbouring town .... Peter Shearan 09:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Brighton Uni

The part of brighton uni is not in polegate, it is actually in Willingdon, which is part of eastbourne, as polegate is a seperate town and not part of eastbourne.

Wha'? The only parts of Brighton Uni I can think of are in Meads, right the other side of town from both Polegate and Willingdon. Incidentally, Willingdon is not usually considered part of Eastbourne - it's actually governed by Wealden District Council - though the distinction is certainly vague for many purposes. - IMSoP 01:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
willingdon is considered part of eastbourne. and yes i agree... the only part of brighton uni i can think of is in meads. Swedishdave 00:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed non-notable

I've taken out the following, as I'm not convinced it's noteworthy enough to include. If "BBD Ninjutsu" means something significant, then it needs to be explained and/or linked, as the wording seems like little more than a local club:

Eastbourne is also home to the BBD Ninjutsu Admin center. Based in "Battle Orders" and co-ordinated by Graham Barton.

- IMSoP 13:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

what ive wrote on eastbourne is true, i know because im a native of this town, who ever is disagreeing obviously has never been to eastbourne

now whoever keeps changing the work ive done, stop it.

Since you weren't logged in when you left that comment (see Wikipedia:Why create an account?), I can't see which contributions you made, and therefore discuss why they were reverted or modified. Certainly most of the information I've seen added recently is true, but a lot of it is not particularly encyclopedic. But like I say, I've no idea what you added, so I can't answer your particular case unless you go into more detail.
Meanwhile, I've just removed a further non-notable addition, as follows; I'm not sure "the only retail business of its type in East Sussex" really qualifies as "unique", and it smacks of advertising to me. I'm happy to be corrected, though, or to discuss my reasoning.

"Eastbourne has some unique businesses, Semantics Glass Engraving Studio hand engraves glass and is the only retail business of its type found in East Sussex."

Oh, I'm not sure about the neutrality of this one either; the "grandeur" of Beachy Head comes from the fact that is a ginormous chalk cliff, not from any particular feature (which, despite living here for 20 years, I recognise neither by name nor description). I'm a little bit shy of removing the fact that it fell down (although, you know, that's what chalk cliffs do!), but I think it needs much thought in wording.

"Beachy Head lost much of its grandeur in 2001 when, following a winter of heavy rains, the Devil's Chimney a distinctive pinnacle of chalk that dominated the cliffs, collapsed into the sea."

- IMSoP 14:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Mr IMSoP well good MOANING to you ! Oh come on Beachy Head was certainly "grand" before the collapse of its main distinguishing feature the Devils Chimney in 2001 and in my opinion still is . Since this collapse many new features have opened up and the whole site is constantly changing . You say you've lived here for 20 years but have you actually been up there and LOOKED ! If you cannot see the grandeur and fascination in this place then I feel sorry for you . Go and live somewhere really interesting like Crawley [citation needed !] because this place is wasted on you ! Oh yes and I loved your comment "that's what chalk cliffs do" - cynical , sad or what ? And no I'm not a geologist - talking of which can we have a geology section please ?! K

RIGHT PEOPLE LETS GET THINGS STRAIGHT, MORTIMERCAT WE DONT HAVE TO HAVE THE EXACT FACTS ON EVERY FUCKING THING AND STOP TALKING BALLOCKS, IMSOP U CAN FUCK OFF BACK TO WHERE U CAME FROM AND PAY ATTENTION...ANY MORE DELITING OF PEOPLES WORK AND I WILL DELETE THE ENTIRE FUCKING PAGE SO BE WARNED......


- Kittyalex 12:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current problems with this article

Firstly, thanks on behalf of our readers to those who have expanded this article so much. It's now reached the size, however, where we need to start making some decisions.

The main point I want to raise is organisation; right now, the article is divided into 14 sections, and while there is plenty of text to support each one, some of them do seem to overlap, leading the same information to appear in more than one place. For instance:

  • 'Reputation' is mainly about tourism, but we also have a 'Leisure and Recreation'...
  • Are 'Parks' not 'Leisure and Recreation'? And do we need to say so much about them anyway?
  • 'Culture' includes appearances in film and TV, a couple of notable residents, and a museum; a mish-mash, really...
  • 'Trivia' is an unfortunate catch-all heading, and much of this should now be in individual sections - either existing or new. Much of it is also unattributed, which is a shame with some of the more statistical items.
  • 'Events' is hard to distinguish from 'Leisure and Recreation', 'Culture', and the current contents of 'Reputation'; obviously, Airbourne is an event, but does the fact that the LPO visit annually really belong in the same section?

I notice that WikiProject UK geography has a list of suggested sections on their How to write about settlements page; perhaps this could be the basis for restructuring.

I think we do also need to be careful not to include non-notable information, particularly things which you would put in a promotional leaflet but could do so for any town. Sections like 'Economy', 'Sports', 'Education', and 'Transport' are particularly hard to present neutrally, because those who know about them will generally be local residents for whom the traffic is particularly annoying, the sports teams particularly fun, etc. We need to ask ourselves: is the traffic busy compared to other towns; are there significantly more, or less, or different, sports teams than in other towns; etc. If the answer's no, we can probably leave a lot of it to the reader's imagination.

OK, I've waffled on long enough about what I think's wrong; I should point out both that there is much that I think is good, and that I am fully aware that some of the problems are my own fault. It's just that the article's on the scale now that it's getting hard to just weigh in and fix it all.

So, what are your thoughts? - IMSoP 18:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote about george 3rds children spending time in eastbourne which started the town of as a resort centre, someone wiped it off, i wrote an article about the reddoubt fortress, someone changed it complety, and about the minority groups, one only has to walk about the town and see minoritie groups, and the chinese ARE THE LARGEST minority group so someone who comment on that obviously did not read it properly. for those arguing about the location of brighton uni, its in the meads and the sports field is in willingdon. and IMSOP are you sure you live in this town, because your talking crap, and writing info thats far from true. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.42.22.209 (talk • contribs).

I agree with using How to write about settlements as a basis. I would suggest removing the trivia section as a start, as that is frowned upon, incorporating them into the main article where appropriate.
I removed Trivia relating to William the Conqueror. It is generally accepted that he landed in Pevensey Bay. Whilst it is possible he could have landed on what is now Eastbourne beach, this conjecture would be better placed in the Battle of Hastings article. MortimerCat 02:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
In response to the 'anonymous' contributor above, yes I am sure I live here, unless the last 20 years of my life have been an extremely vivid hallucination! If I am adding information that is factually incorrect, then please a) fix it and b) point it out to me; this is a collaborative effort, after all, and I'm under no illusion of being infallible, just trying my best like everyone else. To your more sensible points:
  • The info about George III's children currently begins the third paragraph of the history section; it certainly deserves a mention, and if it was removed earlier it may have been because the poor structure of the article made it hard to know where to fit certain facts.
  • I'm sorry you weren't happy to see your article on the Redoubt changed so much, but as it says when you edit an article "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." If there are specific ways in which you think the article has become worse, perhaps you should raise them with other editors on that article's talk page. (To be clear, I've never editted that article to date.)
  • As for the ethnic minority thing, I guess my gut feeling is that Eastbourne is very much less multi-ethnic than some other places, and my interpretation of the census data seemed to bear that out. However, I do know people from all sorts of ethnic backgrounds, including Chinese, and perhaps the statistics are worth mentionning. I guess if we stick to the facts and don't hype it as a great centre of multiculturalism, there's nothing wrong with having the kind of info we have right now.
  • Yes, my parents reminded me of the university sports fields in Willingdon; I was thinking only of the buildings scattered around Meads. I'll mention this in the article, and my apologies for not realising this connection earlier.
Meanwhile, I'll remove the comment about William the Conqueror again (I agree with MortimerCat about its notability, particularly given its unnecessarily chatty style) and prune some other parts which, while mostly true, don't seem to add much to the article. I hope none of these removals prove too controversial, but I think the article will flow better if we try to keep it fairly tight. Feel free to disagree, but I'd be interested to know your reasoning. - IMSoP 19:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Headings

Reorganising the article would be a good next step towards featured article status. It has already been suggested that some section contents overlap, so we need to merge and reduce these. I hereby put forward the following section headings as the ones we want to have in our final article. This is basically a summarised list from How to write about settlements.

  • Intro - Brief summary
  • History - Early history (Stone, Iron, Bronze, Roman); important surviving historic buildings
  • Geography - geology, landscape, climate.
  • Transport
  • Districts
  • Economy - Major industries and employers (including tourism) - include statistics.
  • Culture - Arts, media and sport. Local theatres, radio stations and sports teams. Associated artists and musicians.
  • Politics - Makeup and activities of the local council and Westminster representation.
  • Demographics - census data, population change, age structure, race, religion, etc etc
  • References: We should be citing sources throughout the text using the footnotes markup.
  • External links: Links should give the reader more information on the place. Business directories are not very useful.


The article now follows the above guidelines. MortimerCat 16:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William the Conqueror landing

No-one knows the exact spot William the Conqueror landed when he invaded in 1066 , but it was somewhere around here ! It is rumoured that as he clambered up the shingle he fell and cut himself . So if you find a stone with blood on it ... !!??

This paragraph keeps appearing. It gets removed because 1 the style is 'chatty' not encyclopedic, 2 It is not relevant to Eastbourne because it is generally accepted that he landed in Pevensey Bay. and 3 It is not a fact, its a rumour. A more suitable article would be the Battle of Hastings but it would need a valid citation. MortimerCat 21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

well hello CatMortimer ! Yes I confess it was me who wrote this dodgy paragragh about William the Conqueror ! (exclamation marks and all !!!) and I'm sorry for the bit about him visiting the Arndale Centre before going to battle ! Fair enough my entry was as you say "chatty" , but I do feel that William the Conqueror merits an entry here . It was doubtless the most important event in Britain's history let alone Eastbourne's ! . The history books say he made landfall first below Beachy Head , but due to the conditions sailed further east to set up camp . At the time the coastline around Pevensey Bay would have been completely different with salt-marsh and inlets so who's to say exactly where he landed . Besides when we say Pevensey Bay we're surely talking about the bay itself , as opposed to the coastal community , and this must surely include Eastbourne ? Also is it NOT fair to quote rumours that have gone down in history like our William cutting himself as he climbed the beach and taking it as an omen ? This is depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry is it not ? Oh I don't know - if we look under Nottingham is Robin Hood taken as fact or legend ?

Anyway thanks for your comments . I take these on board and look forward to your comments on the above ! I won't add anything else without your say-so (now you can't tell if I'm being serious or not can you ? Perhaps there should be an alternative Wikipedia with spoof articles . I was bought uo on Peter Simple's spoof column in the Telegraph and believed it at the time !)

PS I assume it was you who also removed my bit about Eastenders being filmed on Seaford Head . Fair dos this was way outside Eastbourne . But shouldn't all film and tv entries include the precise location they were made . You can't just say "Licence to kill" was filmed in Eastbourne for example without saying exactly where !? Cheers K

Kittyalex 12:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I deleted the paragraph was because of the frivolous statement "So if you find a stone with blood on it". The other reason is that there are better articles to put that information, such as Pevensey or Norman conquest of England.
I accept that the exact landing spot is unknown, but the overwhelming evidence points to Pevensey. In 1066 the area was an actual bay, there is a nice map here [1]. As a planned military operation, the bay would be chosen for a sheltered landing, and the advantage of the Roman fort nearby. The Eastbourne area provides no shelters, and a formidable obstacle if they landed at the foot of the cliffs.
There is a story that William fell on the beach. However, these stories are often found to come from later writings, with no evidence that it actually took place. The Victorians were great ones at embellishing the past. This is why Wikipedia asks for citations.
I removed the non-Eastbourne film locations because this is an Eastbourne article. The ones I left did not say where they were filmed so I did not have a valid reason to remove them (I did not put them in originally). With a bit of research I may delete those too. But on the subject of film locations, we should be a inclusion criteria. For example, only include popular (ones that get over a million hits on Google?) films that show recognisable features.
MortimerCat 01:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

hello again . Thanks for your comments . Well I'd still argue till I'm blue in the face for an entry for William the Conker under Eastbourne but then the Norman Army did paint their faces blue before going into battle didn't they (being FRIVOLOUS again aren't I ?) I reckon it's at least 50/50 where he landed was within the present "Eastbourne" boundary ie the far side of the Crumbles development . But I need proof don't I !? Cheers K

Kittyalex 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A coherent sentence stating that there was a possibility that William landed in the area known todays as the Crumbles would have been acceptable as long as there were no jokes about stopping at Frankie & Benny's. But as you say, you would need to quote an expert of the same opinion, especially as this exchange of views is now part of the permanent record of the Eastbourne Wikipedia article.
The falling over story is not relevant to Eastbourne, or even Pevensey. It is mentioned in the Battle of Hastings article, and even here does not quote the source of the legend! MortimerCat 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
hello again . Ok William the Conqueror and Eastbourne are a lost cause ! Again I take your comments on board but I'm intrigued - what is your precise role in this matter ! And have you any idea how many people read this stuff - how many "hits" would our Eastbourne section get per day for example ? Well thanks again and I will give you +ve feedback - oh sorry this is Wikipedia not eBay - I do get confused ! Loved your F&B joke by the way . Cheers K
Kittyalex 10:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WWII Bombing

This is my first edit and I apologise for any breaches in convention. As you see, I’ve added additional details about WW2. The existing article suggested that bomb damage was due to the jettisoning of bombs by returning aircraft. Although this did happen on occasions (16 Aug 40 for sure and probably 31 Mar 44), it should not form the main thrust of the account.

Mikeo1938 09:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Mikeo1938 09:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mikeo1938 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Added a comma to my para

Mikeo1938 20:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) More tinkering. In the para about WW2, replaced a link which I had accidentally deleted; and added another for D-Day

[edit] A quick lesson in citing references

The main failing of the Eastbourne article was the lack of references. Officially every fact must come from another source and we need to say what that source was. To do this we use the <ref></ref> markup. For example we write

Eastbourne is in England<ref>http://www.multimap.com</ref>

This appears on the final page as Eastbourne is in England1

The information can come from books, newspapers, websites etc, but full details need to be given. Authors names, dates, publishers ISBN number etc. There are a range of templates on Wikipedia:Citation templates that can be used. If you are not sure what to do, put the source information on the page anyway, another editor will tidy it up for you. MortimerCat 12:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added two refs to the para about WW2. They appear to upset the line spacing a little, but perhaps this always happens.

Mikeo1938 21:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Eastbourne Article Tidy

Our next milestone is making Eastbourne a good article under the assessment process. See What is a good article

Below are the current sections as of 7th Jan 2007. I suggest we look at each section individually. Discuss here how each section can be improved. What information is missing? Is is grammatically correct. Does it read as a coherent paragraph or as a disjointed set of sentences? Can it be broken into subsections. Are there other articles that expand on the subject (eg. Beachy Head has its own article). Where are the sources of the information. Does the information relate to Eastbourne? Do we need additional pictures? etc. etc.

Everyone reading this has a part to play, we need a consensus of opinions. Even if you do not want to edit the main article, please tell us what can be done to improve it. Feel free to edit the main article too, as Wikipedia says "Be bold". I am hoping this talk section will fill with comments and become a todo list. MortimerCat 01:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My first general comment is about the inconsistency of capital letters and the frequent unnecessary use of quotation marks. This runs throughout the whole article as it stands.

Mikeo1938 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Created almost from scratch during the 19th Century. This seems to contradict the history section which states some even speculate that it was a major Roman settlement MortimerCat 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So why not: In the 19th century, with the arrival of the railway and a surge in the popularity of seaside holidays, the town soon became a prime seaside resort. However, it has suffered from the general trend away from taking holidays within the UK. Mikeo1938 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced those two statements are contradictory - the key word in the intro is almost, denoting that it wasn't a completely new town. I guess both sentences could be clearer, though - saying that "it was a major Roman settlement", makes it sound like the major settlement of that time is the same one we have now, which is not the case. What is really meant is that there was a completely distinct settlement on the same site that subsequently all but vanished, to be replaced much later by a town which predominantly dates from the 19th century onwards.
I've made a slight rewording to this effect, but it possibly now comes out too vague ("in the area"). A similar change in the opposite direction should perhaps be made in the intro - "The modern town was created almost from scratch" or something; I'm not quite sure how to put it, but I think the fact that it was not just smaller but basically non-existent is both true and germane to the summary, so would oppose Mikeo's suggestion. - IMSoP 23:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there was a large increase in size during the 19th century. It was the "almost from scratch" that I did not like. According to the article, Eastbourne was formed from four villages, not "almost from scratch". With a bit of research I found some actual figures, it went from 2000 to 20,000. Once I have that as a verifiable source I will add it. MortimerCat 00:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I still think talking of it "growing" gives the wrong impression: what is currently considered the town centre wasn't smaller before the 19th Century, it simply didn't exist. The point being that the four villages didn't gradually coalesce, they were deliberately (and quite quickly) subsumed into a new resort. Perhaps I'm tending to overstate the case, but that feels pretty much like "almost from scratch" to me - there are older parts of Eastbourne, but all the "central" parts date from the C19th onward. - IMSoP 13:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
All I know about the early days of Eastbourne has come from this article. You have convinced me that "almost from scratch" is factually accurate. I still would like to replace that phrase though. I have thought about it for ages but have still to come up with an alternative. MortimerCat 08:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Changing the subject, according to the auto peer review the introduction is too short. It needs a couple more paragraphs. MortimerCat 17:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

A comment in the auto peer review was that we had no infobox. This made me realise that our infobox is homemade. I think we should be standardising with the rest of the UK, so I will be replacing the current infobox with the recommended template. MortimerCat 18:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The new box is in place. The original was prettier, but at least we are standardising with the rest of the UK. As a bonus, the yellow dot is appearing in the correct place. Well it is for me using IE7 and Firefox. --MortimerCat 20:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Should we subsection this into periods ie Roman, Norman, WWII, etc? MortimerCat 02:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the existing paragraphs do well enough this already. Mikeo1938 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There was little controversy about development prior to the 1960s so we should not say “Throughout the 20th century”.

The South Cliff Tower predates the TGWU and should come first. It was the former that sparked the creation of the Eastbourne Preservation Society (subsequently Eastbourne Civic Society and now Eastbourne Society). This fact deserves a mention because it was in the 1960s that people woke up to what was happened to the town.

The current wording of this part is somewhat confusing, I'll paste it for ease of reference:
These factors, later exacerbated in 1965 by the construction on the seafront of the 19-storey South Cliff Tower, followed by the glass-plated TGWU headquarters, caused a storm of protest which resulted in the founding in 1961 of what has since become The Eastbourne Society.
Basically, the chronology is all over the place: if the South Cliff Tower and TGWU centre both came after the foundation of the Society, the "storm of protest" must have had some other trigger which is not mentionned - or not really been what the word "storm" conjures up for me at all.
I presume the "later exacerbated in 1965 by" was added to explain that these weren't what led to the foundation, but in that case why put them in the same sentence as though they were? Would it not make more sense to state the facts in chronological order? I'd go ahead and do it, but frankly I'm not confident enough that I've understood the current wording correctly. - IMSoP 21:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Plaques

There should be a section called ‘Notable People’ at the end of History. Here we can lead with a list of those who are commemorated by the various official blue plaques. I don’t think that this list should include contemporary performers. I am in the process of getting the list of blue plaques for inclusion.

I am about to insert references into the History section. (I hope they appear in the correct format.) Mikeo1938 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is my draft of an entry about Blue Plaques in Eastbourne. I suggest that it should go with a sub-heading at the end of the History section. What do people think? Mikeo1938 20:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In 1993, following a suggestion to Eastbourne Borough Council by Eastbourne Civic Society (now (Unfortunately, the above was in a table in MS Word, but it needs reformatting to the page. Could someone pse do this for me? Each table has 4 columns: name, dates, profession, location of plaque.) Mikeo1938 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, I have formatted a table. Some of the data was mixed up, so it needs checking. Cyril Connolly appears twice. I assume the dates are the birth and death dates of the person. Is the length of stay in Eastbourne readily available? I feel that would be more relevant to an Eastbourne article. MortimerCat 22:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the Blue plaque tables should go under Culture as a separate sub-heading. MortimerCat 23:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK about the suggested position. I am still tweaking the information but will be posting the table ASAP. Mikeo1938 14:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Well, I give up! Can someone pse help? I've fiddled with this for ages ... in vain.

What we need is for the 5 distinguished pupils of St Cyprian's School all to appear in the same row - one above the other. Can we get the words, Pupils of St Cyprian's School, above the first of them, Sir Cecil Beaton. We don't want horizontal lines to separate them. These 5 names are all together on the same plaque in Summerdown Road. Mikeo1938 20:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I finally got the table in place. But how do I create a horizontal line to separate it from Media below? Mikeo1938 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The tables look good. An horizontal rule is made by ---- on a line by itself. However, it does say use sparingly. Personally, I think you should not put one, it looks okay as it is. It may look out of place with some of the other skins. MortimerCat 17:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just realised that the line goes underneath the heading and not at the end of a piece. I'm going to write a few notes about the association of the various people with the town ... whether it was their home, or whatever. Mikeo1938 19:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have references for the latest para about Blue Plaques; these will appear shortly. Mikeo1938 21:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC) I don't understand why St Cyprian's School in my new para does not link to the wiki article of that name. I mean, why is it in red? Mikeo1938 21:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:The problem is the single quote. The one in the paragraph slopes to the left ’, the article uses a straight one ' . MortimerCat 22:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC) VMT and noted Mikeo1938 07:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the association paragraph is too big? Perhaps we could split it in two, moving the top half underneath the top table, to which it relates? MortimerCat 22:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK: We could move everything before Charlie Chester to a position below the top table and leave the notes about the people who have private plaques below the second table. Would you like to do that? I'm anxious to finish off the outside painting! Mikeo1938 13:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is Henry G Longhurst? I would like to create a stub for him to eliminate that red link. A small search found Henry Carpenter Longhurst (1909–1978), golf journalist and commentator. Is this him? The G is a C, and I found no mention of him being an MP? MortimerCat 13:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Yes, the G should indeed be C (Carpenter). I suggest you create that stub and I'll try to find out about the MP matter. Mikeo1938 14:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC) OK, I've found a reference. He was the MP (National Conservative) for Acton from 1943 to 1945. There's a reference under Acton in Wiki. Mikeo1938 16:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC) You'll see that I've corrected Longhurst's initial. Hope you'll do the stub. Mikeo1938 17:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other famous residents

I discovered a category Category:People from Eastbourne. Maybe linking to this category, for other famous residents see People from Eastbourne? Maybe losing a few names in this section? Could be controversial! MortimerCat 18:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the removal of the individuals from Trivia to Culture, I am unhappy with the heading, ‘Other famous residents’. The word ‘famous’ is too strong when applied to some of these people (“Purley, famous place – say no more!”) and they were not all residents. How about ‘Other people associated with Eastbourne’ or 'Others associated with Eastbourne' (?) Mikeo1938 22:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think just Other Residents. Although, we could lose the section altogether. Move the ones who were educated in Eastbourne, eg Prunella Scales, to Education. The bands and DJ to Arts. etc. MortimerCat 23:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps lose the two red link residents as they are not notable enough to warrant their own article. (or fix the link). MortimerCat 00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be prefer to put them under 'Other Residents' and omit the 'famous'. It seems better to keep them in this section rather than put them elsewhere. In most cases, they will simply consist of a one-off reference. And let's drop the red link entries. Mikeo1938 21:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geography

I have described the geology of the area. It mentions the geography occasionally, but that probably should be expanded on as it is the title of this section. Climate should also go here, we have the sunshine hours fact, but we need a general climate description too. MortimerCat 13:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Districts

Are the various places included within the districts officially recognised as such by EBC? (BTW, and purely as a matter of interest for here, the term Little Chelsea was dreamt up as a marketing ploy by an estate agent; it did not exist prior to the early 1970s. Of course, the ploy has been successful and the term is now in general use.)

Mikeo1938 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently there are nine wards in Eastbourne: Ratton, Hampden Park, Old Town, Langney, St Anthony's, Meads, Devonshire, Sovereign and Upperton. Downside, Ocklynge and Roselands no longer exist as a political Ward. The districts mentioned in the article do not seem to have any official basis. I recommend rewriting the article with nine paragraphs, one for each Ward, briefly describing each area.

Further questions: Is the Norway section notable enough for inclusion? Are there any facts behind the selling the Holywell cottages story? Does anyone consider Polegate, Jevington, Stone Cross or Pevensey to be part of Eastbourne? MortimerCat 00:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should use the 9 official wards. The outlying districts such as Polegate are not part of E'bne.

The comment about Norway does not belong here.

I've never heard the story about the Hollywell cottages. I believe that the fishermen were forced to move when the area was exploited for the town's water supply. This was when the Bedford well became contaminated. I will check this.

Mikeo1938 14:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Having second thoughts about using Wards in this section as these could go into Politics. Are there any other non-political district breakdowns in Eastbourne? MortimerCat 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transport

The railway arrived in E’bne in 1849. It had reached Sussex before then. Before 1849, people had to travel by other means to Polegate.

Mikeo1938 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A problem arose with MortimerCat’s edit to my wording when the item about the buses was moved back into Transport from History. In fact, today’s company, ‘Eastbourne Buses’, was not formed in recent years following complaints about the poor service provided by independent operators. The complaints were about the poor service provided independent operators before 1903; and it was these early 20C complaints which gave rise to the creation of the Eastbourne Corporation Motor Omnibus Department. Dave Spencer is clear about this in his book. In Chapter 1, he writes of the poor service by independent operators such as Chapman and Sons, and goes on to say: “In response to complaints about transport in the town the Corporation gained powers to run its own bus service.”

I agree that the item is now well placed in Transport, but propose that we return to the original wording to give:

“Buses are operated by Eastbourne Buses offering journeys to all parts of the town and surrounding areas. Following complaints about the poor service provided by independent operators, the County Borough of Eastbourne in 1903 became first local authority in the world authorised to run motorbuses. This long history is a source of pride for the current operator, Eastbourne Buses, which is a company part-owned by the Borough Council.”

(The final sentence makes it clear that the bus service of today buses is not solely a municipal undertaking, as had been the case between 1903 and the creation of the present company.)

:Reverted MortimerCat 00:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy

Very short. We cannot leave wholesaler Gardners Books can probably claim, we need facts! MortimerCat 02:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture:Media

I suggest a criteria for inclusion for people, such as having their own Wiki article. I noticed Rooster is pointing to a chicken article. We want to avoid a list of names. If we are going to namedrop, then we should say when and what the association is with Eastbourne. We also need to consider the importance of the association. Is Eddie Izzard going to Eastbourne college really significant to the rest of the world?

See comment above about blue plaques.

Mikeo1938 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an informative use for TV/film appearances in that a viewer knows he is seeing part of the town. A list of names should be expanded to include a description of the scene. Again an inclusion criteria should be set. Was the scene recognisable as Eastbourne? Is the film/programme likely to be seen again?

Agreed: It would be necessary to provide dates and brief details of the film/show. Not just a title.

Mikeo1938 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We have Seven Sisters and Cuckmere Haven mentioned. As it is debatable that these are in Eastbourne, I would suggest that these facts are more appropriate under those articles. MortimerCat 02:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture:Parks

[edit] Culture:Performing Arts

[edit] Culture:Recreation

Fine on this new section ... I've done a minor edit. However, we need a definite article before the first "pier". Also, I guess you mean "consists of" rather than "exists". Now back to the painting ... Mikeo1938 14:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

First you see it - now you don't! The apostrophe has gone AWOL again. We need - children's adventure parks - Mikeo1938 18:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I mean - children's adventure park - Mikeo1938 18:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Having researched the apostrophe, I think it should be childrens' adventure [2] being a plural posessive. However, English was my worst subject at school. MortimerCat 00:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Hello again: No, I can assure you that it's children's ... there's a rule if you're uncertain. You convert the problem into the "of" form and then you put the apostrophe after the word that takes "of". So: the house of the boy = the boy's house; the house of the boys = the boys' house. The house of the child = the child's house; the house of the children = the children's house; the house of the man = the man's house; the house of the men = the men's house. Fiendish! But on anothe tack, can you pse insert 6 Bolton Road into the "location" cell of the table. Soddy has two plaques, as you'll see from my edit. Perhaps the other one had been removed by workmen ... (?) ... but it's again in situ. Mikeo1938 08:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture:Sports

I have done a general tidy, removing NPOV stuff. I am dubious about the Direct Line championship being the oldest championship, the only mentions I can find are from people quoting Wikipedia. Does any have any further information, or can elaborate on the actual claim. MortimerCat 05:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture:Tourism

[edit] Politics

A paragraph for each type of possible election. European, Parliamentary, County Council, Local Council. Indicating current party etc, but linked to the article for the constituency.

Ian Gow should be mentioned.

Labour candidates are usually considered to have little chance in elections This should be removed as NPOV and weasel words, unless someone can cite a valid source. MortimerCat 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Rewritten with sources, but I am sure the grammar needs tidying. MortimerCat 00:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC) The new section looks fine; hope that I can help generally but will be busy for the next few days. Mikeo1938 08:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

[edit] Education

Various assertions here, but the section is lacking in references. Does anyone know the source of hard information:statistical and so on? Mikeo1938 09:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I suggest losing this section completely, the first step would be to move the entries to an appropriate other section. Later deciding if any irrelevant to Eastbourne. MortimerCat 11:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This section now only contains personalities. If we move these ASAP, perhaps en bloc, then the trivia section can be removed helping to prevent further trivia. MortimerCat 17:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC) I also feel that Trivia seems out of place in an encyclopaedia article. Mikeo1938 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Trivia should be removed as a discrete section. However, certain items (with appropriate references) could be incorporated (if not already appearing) into other sections. I am preparing a list of notable people whose association with the town is marked by blue plaques. Mikeo1938 22:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm having 2nd thoughts about Trivia ... I've seen this in lots of articles in Wiki. Mikeo1938 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:Trivia sections are in a lot of articles, but all the style documents frown upon it. See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles for example. It has helped collect a lot of facts which we are now incorporating into the main document. My personal goal is to get a Feature article status, which means following the guidelines. Of course, this will have to be a consensus opinion. MortimerCat 23:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've gone ahead and got rid of this section, finding homes for all the remaining facts. I was initially put off by our only lists of residents being under "blue plaques" and "media", but thinking about Michael Fish I realised that the latter was simply the wrong heading. I think this is a good reason for not having a trivia section now that the article is a decent size: if you can't find a good place in the article for a fact that is worth mentioning, then there's a problem with the structure of the article, and filing under "miscellaneous" won't help us.
Unfortunately, that still leaves a rather higgledy-piggledy list under my new heading of Other famous residents - no particular order, and rather different levels of detail... - IMSoP 18:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I just converted this section to a small style. I think it looks better, but what do others think? MortimerCat 21:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. It looks better like that. Mikeo1938 14:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I think this section should only have links to sites that has general information about Eastbourne, not specific items or advertising. The specific links should be moved in the article, for example the link to the Military museum should appear in the Tourism section. MortimerCat 16:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photographs

We should review the photographs too. I will point out this is not criticising the artistic merits of the photograph, but its suitability for use in this article whose function is to give information about the town of Eastbourne.

  • Eastbourne Redoubt

I removed the model picture because this is an Eastbourne article, not a fort article. This current picture could be improved with a wider angle shot showing the context in which the Redoubt lies within the current seafront landscape.

  • Martello Tower

This is a better picture for an Eastbourne article. You can see how other buildings have been built surrounding the tower. Perhaps a similar shot including the sea?

  • Eastbourne Pier and Beach

A good, typical postcard, showing the pier and beach. A definite keep.

  • Eastbourne from Beachy Head

This is a good view for the geography section. It gives a good indication of the height of the downs, although maybe taken on a clearer day.

  • Eastbourne Bandstand

Perfect.

  • Eastbourne pier at night.

I suggest this one should be removed. We have two other pictures of the pier, and this one does not provide any more information.

  • General Von Arnim's Staff Car

This should be removed as this is an Eastbourne article.
MortimerCat 11:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images of England

According to Images of England there are over 100 listed buildings in Eastbourne - if might be worth checking if these (at least grade I & II*) are worthy of mention. I've done the Congress theatre as an example. — Rod talk 22:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I never thought about using the IOE site and I was one of their photographers! There are four II* in Eastbourne, which will go into the article. Thanks. MortimerCat 23:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have discovered that "Search by Postal Town" on the ioe site does not work properly. There are two Grade I listed buildings in Eastbourne. Compton Place and the stables at Compton Place. There are seven Grade II* buildings, Congress Theatre, All Saints Hospital, Claremont Hotel, Bronze statue, Grand parade, Langney Priory, The Old Parsonage and Church of All Souls. MortimerCat 13:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Comments

I have seen lots of other articles relating to Eastbourne. Beachy Head,Eastbourne railway station,Hampden Park, East Sussex,Eastbourne Borough F.C.,Langney Sports Club,Langney,Eastbourne Buses. Should we be removing information from the Eastbourne article that is duplicated in these sub articles? MortimerCat 11:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements has just updated its guidelines. Shall we incorporate these? MortimerCat 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I used an automated Peer review script to analyse the current article, the results are here. /Peer Review 20070120 This checks the page against Wikipedias recommended styles. Something to bear in mind when editing. MortimerCat 17:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Something has happened to the references. The numbers are not running consecutively at the start of the article. Mikeo1938 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference sources are allocated a number which is displayed as the superscript. For most articles these will stay in numeric order. However, there is nothing to stop a reference source being used again throughout the document. (This is why we NAME them). In our case paragraphs 1 and 3 quotes reference no.1, while paragraph 2 quotes reference no.2. This is perfectly acceptable. MortimerCat 13:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary links (?) Does anyone think the article is overloaded with links to quite ordinary words such as ‘beach’, ‘village’, ‘hotel’ and so on? Mikeo1938 11:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point. I have not been able to find an answer in Wikipedias policies MortimerCat 13:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK: I see no point in having links for such ordinary words and propose they be removed. Their presence clutters the page. Mikeo1938 12:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I found the guidelines Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context MortimerCat 14:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again: Well, I'll go through and remove links to such simple words. Mikeo1938 17:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Work so far

You may have noticed, I have crossed out all comments relating to work already completed. Hopefully, this makes it easier to see what items still need to be addressed. MortimerCat 19:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is getting long. Do you think we should move this current collaboration section to its own subpage, or just archive the rest of the page? MortimerCat 12:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC) I just know that the page is getting too long and would prefer it to be shorter, but with the older parts easily accessible. Mikeo1938 12:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You'll see that my 2nd ref to the Belle Tout (about it having been moved) comes out as a "press release". It was not really this but just a piece which appeared in that newspaper on the date I give. How should this citation be laid out? I could not find a template for newspaper reports. Mikeo1938 20:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The template for news seems to include newspapers. However, the title is compulsory, so I called it "Belle Tout moved". If you know the proper headline, could you change it please. MortimerCat 02:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Major Clanger!: I've managed to erase everything after "Education". Sorry about this. Guess it can be restored from the history, but I'd prefer to leave it to MortimerCat or one of the others with more experience. Mikeo1938 17:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks, MortimerCat for putting that right. Mikeo1938 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bandstand Picture.

Although the unused bandstand is a better quality photograph, the bandstand in use picture is showing the purpose of the bandstand. Bearing in mind this is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery, I think the bandstand in use is providing the reader with more information. MortimerCat 01:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Unused bandstand

Bandstand in use.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/a/s/Talk%7EEastbourne_d394.html"