Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sussex

message: 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)
replies: text: Now see Draft:St Mary's Hall, Brighton. PamD 17:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[St Mary's Hall, Brighton]]- needs an article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Crawley]] - finish or delete? 

message: 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 .
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.
=== Background ===
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)
replies: text: Seen by Charles (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject collaboration notice from the [[WP:WPPORT|Portals WikiProject]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Seen by Charles (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: 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)
thread_title: Chichester School merge

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Portal talk:Sussex]] and [[Portal:West Sussex]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:Sussex]] for deletion 

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

message: Not sure how active this project is, but any chance of a photo?  —— § erial 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Redlands manor house (?) West Wittering 

message: 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)
thread_title: Weald and Downland Living Museum

message: 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)
replies: text: Excellent, thanks Richard. Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Sussex Archaeological Collections]]'' 

message: 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)
replies: text: Pinging participants to get more input . Crouch, Swale (talk)  18:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a participant. JeffreyTBest (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Parishes project 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disambiguation tags 

message: 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 "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
* John Smith "" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from ,  and .
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)
thread_title:  User script to detect unreliable sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[Eddie Izzard]] 

message: Hello,Please note that East Sussex, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! 
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed county infobox template change