Talk:Hailsham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cattle Market[edit]

Quote from current article (as of 3/1/07); There is currently much controversy over the sale of Hailsham Cattle Market and its redevelopment into a supermarket. Hailsham was originally granted its charter for a market in 1252 by Henry III. The market is one of few remaining cattle markets along the south coast, and if closed, would probably be a great loss to the town. The local MP, Charles Hendry, has got involved and is fighting to keep the market open.

While I agree this is certainly a local issue at present, to me, it doesent seem to 'fit' in a factually based encyclopedia such as this one. The planned Tesco development is just as controversial, yet it isn't mentioned in the article - thoughts, anybody? Muchclag 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The advantage of Wikipedia is that it can include current issues. As long as it is written with a neutral point of view, I do not see a problem. The current statement does seem slightly biased towards the Save the Market camp though. Likewise, the Tesco development should go in, again written with a neutral point of view. MortimerCat 00:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough :) - Writing the Tesco debate from a neutral point of view would be pretty difficult. Everyone seems to have very strong opinions on it in the town, either way!. Likewise, the local press seem to have taken an 'Anti' view - it would require a lot of self-research. Muchclag 10:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aldi's plans for the cattle market have been turned down, as reported in Sussex express 23rd Nov 2007 http://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/Final-blow-for-supermarket-bid.3517667.jp does anyone want to update the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsx geoff (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And done - Sussex Express reference added. I'll see what I can do on the photo front too.Muchclag (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still an issue in the town? I think some redevleopment is needed on this particular part of the page. --Frontier219 (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Style Reorganisation[edit]

I have reorganised the article as per comments on my Talk Page . Muchclag (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cuckoo line.[edit]

Tidying up the Railway section, I struggled to understand the closure sequence. I would suggest the first two paragraphs needs a slight revamping, putting into a more chronological order. At the moment it mentions the 1968 closure, then the 1965 closure, and finally back again to the 1968. MortimerCat (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked a little to add emphasis - Hailsham outlived the rest of the line by three years.Muchclag (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What next?[edit]

Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements I have concluded that the main sections we are missing are: History, Governance, Geography, Demography. Additionally, the lead section needs expanding. I will start on the Governance section.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements gives a good summary of the Manual of style which we should be following. Citing sources is important, especially if we want GA status. The rule is nothing to be added without a citation mainly because facts without citations get removed prior to GA accreditation.

Good luck! MortimerCat (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mainly a commuter town[edit]

A terribly easy thing to say, and always making it sound as though people are flocking to London! The website here, whilst agreeing that there are commuters, says that "some" go to London, others to "nearby towns" (Brighton, Eastbourne, maybe Hastings, I suspect). Peter Shearan (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am surprised there are people living there who commute to London at all! Just because the Hastings/Bexhill area is deprived doesn't mean the whole of Sussex is. e.g. Brighton and Eastbourne are massive places for business. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  19:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the statement since no-one has yet supported it. 217.42.140.79 (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review[edit]

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.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
  • 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, MortimerCat (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roads[edit]

Hailsham is near the junction of two major roads, The A22 road to Eastbourne and Crowborough and the A27 South Coast Trunk Road.

  1. A22 goes nowhere near Crowborough, was that supposed to say Croydon?
  2. A27 does not enter Hailsham. "The A22/A27 junction is in the next Parish" would be factually correct but not very notable.

MortimerCat (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says the junction is NEAR Hailsham, Uckfield or East Grinstead should be on the A22 instead of crowborough, How about adding Eastbourne (If that isnt already on there) Kentm (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy to remove or clarification to add[edit]

Forgive a comment on an otherwise good article, but the first line of the first para either contains redundancy or needs clarification. It says Hailsham is "the largest of the five main towns in the Wealden district of East Sussex, England" without further qualification. Surely "the largest town in the Wealden district of East Sussex, England" is sufficient. It would perhaps be useful to list the other top-five towns. Thanks! p.r.newman (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Sounds fun, but maybe there should be some refs? There was some activity in this part of Sussex during the baronial wars and in the armed rivalry between Matilda and Stephen, the castle at Pevensey being garrisoned and held by opposing sides. SovalValtos (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit and Delete[edit]

No amount of editing will make an off topic section relevant. Incomprehensible nonsense also needs removing, particularly nonsense unsupported by refs.SovalValtos (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hailsham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hailsham. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Hailsham. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hailsham&oldid=1207510610"