From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects.
Click [show] for further details |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Sussex WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the county of Sussex in South East England.
If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.) |
| High |
This article is on a subject of High-importance for Sussex-related articles. |
|
|
Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
|
|
[edit] Merge proposal
Why should this be separate from the South Downs main article? The SDNP comprises almost all of the South Downs and it is illogical to take the information here away from it IMO Peter Shearan (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. I have no strong feelings either way but I think it is true that the park will not cover the whole of the Downs, but will include chalk areas not traditionally thought of as part of the South Downs (the downs of East Hampshire west of the closure of the Weald) and non-chalk areas that are definitely not. An example where this can cause confusion is "North Wessex Downs" (who?) which is actually about the artificial "North Wessex Downs AONB" but has been renamed. Various "real" places such as the Vale of Pewsey were then turned into redirects to it, because the AONB includes them (I've since addressed this), and it has possibly inhibited people from writing articles about real places such as the Marlborough Downs etc. In a South Downs National Park article I would expect to find stuff about the responsible bodies, arguments about establishment, boundaries etc, while the South Downs article should be about the geography and geology of the actual place regardless of this. As they stand the articles probably should be merged, but ideally both should be expanded to cover different aspects. Pterre (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
