Talk:Bishopstone, East Sussex

message: ==== Lord Sheffield or the Duke of Newcastle? ====
Tide Mills states "Duke of Newcastle. with attribution, Bishopstone states Lord Sheffield, no attribution yet.  Which is correct, or are they the same person?Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues assuming the merge proceeds

message: Tide Mills states "Duke of Newcastle. with attribution, Bishopstone states Lord Sheffield, no attribution yet.  Which is correct, or are they the same person?Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Sheffield or the Duke of Newcastle? 

message: Well that (Revision as of 13:09, 23 April 2006) seems to have pretty much detrmined the outcome (currently) of the proposed merge :-).  However, when this is resolved, the discussion about which page goes where should probably resume Fiddle Faddle 12:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The copyvio 

message: The area of Tide Mills was not, according to correspondence with Newhaven Local & Maritime Museum demolished by gunfire from the fort, but to provide a clear field of fire against German invading forces.  I have edited that paragraph to reflect this correspondence.  Additionally I have asked the museum to take some time to look the articles over.  IMO it seems right both to record the myth that they have stated to be a myth about the demolition (and attribute the source) together with the correction that they stated.  The outcome was the same.  The village was destroyed for military reasons, and doubtless wuth explosions that will have appeared to be the results of an artillery barrage Fiddle Faddle 08:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tide Mills area 

message: I think there is every justification for having separate articles for Bishopstone, East Sussex, East Blatchington and Tide Mills, East Sussex. Clearly they need to link between each other but Wikipedia is very receptive to place name articles. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silverknowes where my suggestion that some merges might be appropriate was overruled by a simple keep all. -- RHaworth 17:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: Extracted from the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements.
Writing about the smallest of settlements in the UK can be difficult due to the lack of source material, especially when compared with the country's major metropolises. Some of the UK's smallest settlements may form part of a civil parish or council ward. Country hamlets and villages may mention significant places that might not be considered part of the village, but which lie within the parish or ward. Hamlets that are within another parish or council ward could have their own articles, but if there is no more than a couple of paragraphs that could be said about the hamlet it may be best practice to merge the articles.
 
My current project is clearing up the numerous East Sussex location stubs, mainly by merging the one line hamlet articles into and therefore expanding the civil parish article. Although its slightly bigger than the others I have seen, I think this article should be merged into Seaford, East Sussex. -- MortimerCat (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again! I am at the moment doing a complete rewrite of the somewhat unconvincing Newhaven, East Sussex article. The comment above, quoting the guidelines, is apposite to what I am attempting. What I am trying to do, among other things, is to bring together all the articles on the town into one main article, and have proposed merges to do so. That ties in with the guidelines completely. Three of the articles talk about nonexistent (today) places - hospital (which has a very complicated set of linking articles; I have commented on that too!); seaplane base; and the Tide Mills themselves. The Museum takes all them into their website, so I am taking it that the town boundaries incorporate them too: if they do, even more reason to be within the parent article. Do you happen to know if they do? The existing Newhaven article barely touches on anything as recommended in the guidelines - geography, governance, economy, etc etc - and there is far too much unreferenced stuff. Peter Shearan (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal revisited 

message: As a resident in Bishopstone, I thought I'd add a few clarifications: 
The hospital mentioned still exists as ruined foundations, adjacent to the Tide Mills site. 
There is no connection between Bishopstone and Tide Mills; Tide Mills is geographically closer to Newhaven (although they may both lie in the same parish). 
I believe Bishopstone lies within the Seaford Town Boundary. 
If a merge was desired, collecting all small hamlets within the parish could be appropriate; however there is no other link between the two places. 
Gillsgills (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few clarifications