Talk:Bexhill-on-Sea

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
*As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  20:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated Peer Review 

message: I see no reason whatever for the line "In more recent years, however, the town has declined and is now just another place for old people go to die and then forget what they came for, like Eastbourne". It adds nothing to the article and is ageist in the extreme. Why not just quote statistics that show the demography of the town (ie a high proportion of elderly residents), and leave it at that? In addition, there is a perfectly good Exlink which tells a great deal more about the town's history, and which shows how the seaside resort came into being. Brighton is NOT "nearby" and its origins were quite different; and Bexhill can never be said to have been "trendy": why cannot the word "popular" be used when talking about past events? Bexhill was not agricultural: it was, if anything, fishing that was common around these parts (and how about smuggling?). Finally, the decline of the town (see the external link) had its roots in the decline of its somewhat upmarket population with the closure of many independent schools after the war. The ethos of those inhabitants continues to a great extent. There was nothing about transport links; and the fact of the old town of Bexhill on the hill is completely ignored.
All in all, a somewhat disappointing article for one who knows Bexhill. Peter Shearan 07:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know Bexhill, then you're welcome to change anything that's incorrect in the article. The paragraph you quoted was added yesterday, and has now been removed. —Xezbeth 07:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
"It adds nothing to the article" other than pointing out that the town can no longer be seen as a resort.  "And is ageist in the extreme" may be the case, but it is also correct, if somewhat politically incorrect.  I like the way you rewrote it, thanks - you managed to express much the same sentiment with little risk of offending my parents if they should ever read it :-)
such a boring little town.... but the de la warr is pretty cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.149.50.59 (talk • contribs) 2 July 2005
Boring little town? I have lived here all my life and there is still so much to do. TheWolf0202 (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: "It closed for major restoration work in 2003 and reopened in October of 2005, to much criticism"
What criticism? Of what nature? Is there a reference for this? FrFintonStack 21:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: De La Warr Pavillion

message: Well, I originally had my non-profit making Bexhill Guide website in the external links at the bottom of the Bexhill page. But Wikipedia decided to remove it due to the fact that I am affiliated with it. Therefore, I am not able to add it in. Great to have such support after three and a half years of building the site in my own time. So can I please put forward the suggestion that it is re-added into the External Links? It is the main website promoting tourism in Bexhill, whilst also providing a resource of historical information, photographs and more.
http://www.bexhill-on-sea.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allyhazell (talk • contribs) 
: Hello Ally. Please stop spamming Wikipedia with external links to all your domains. You are doing this in multiple articles. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory. (Requestion 19:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not added any more links to any of my other domains in any Wikipedia articles since I was requested not to add any more links that I thought to be appropriate. However, the link that I added back into the entry for Bexhill is for a non-profit-making website that I run for Bexhill. It is a site that I have spent a heck of a lot of time and money on (over the course of 3 years) and that drives business to the local tourism community and invests money in the town. So I strongly feel that this one should be included. I will not post any links to any other websites in any other Wikipedia articles. But in this case the link IS for an appropriate site that gives more historical information , photographs, video and useful information on Bexhill than any other website. Please take a look. Allyhazell 23:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bexhill Website 

message: I notice that someone has already reverted the removal of Hayley Okines from Noted individuals associated with Bexhill, which was removed with the comment "Does not meet notability criteria". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Notability  states 
"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I would suggest that a search of Google for the term link:http://www.hayleyspage.com/ will provide a selection of reliable  secondary sources including the BBC. Certainly enough to validate Hayley Okines inclusion. Winchelsea (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just restored Hayley Okines on the grounds that the consensus on this talk page is that she is notable. Admittedly there is only one comment on the subject, but this does mean the removal has to be agreed first. Putney Bridge (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hayley Okines

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bexhill-on-Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615001758/http://www.bexhill-museum.co.uk:80/ to http://www.bexhill-museum.co.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bexhill-on-Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614043113/http://www.rother.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=2573&articleaction=print to http://www.rother.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=2573&articleaction=print
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bexhill-museum.co.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bexhill-on-Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070517030827/http://www.rother.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=792 to http://www.rother.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=792
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion