Talk:Eastbourne/collaboration

This page allows discussion on each individual section, thus saving the comments getting lost during active collaboration.

Discuss here how each section can be improved. What information is missing? Is is grammatically correct. Does it read as a coherent paragraph or as a disjointed set of sentences? Can it be broken into subsections. Are there other articles that expand on the subject (eg. Beachy Head has its own article). Where are the sources of the information. Does the information relate to Eastbourne? Do we need additional pictures? etc. etc.

Everyone reading this has a part to play, we need a consensus of opinions. Even if you do not want to edit the main article, please tell us what can be done to improve it. Feel free to edit the main article too, as Wikipedia says "Be bold". I am hoping this talk section will fill with comments and become a todo list.

Obsolete comments can be struck out using <s>...</s>

General Comments

My first general comment is about the inconsistency of capital letters and the frequent unnecessary use of quotation marks. This runs throughout the whole article as it stands.

Mikeo1938 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Created almost from scratch during the 19th Century. This seems to contradict the history section which states some even speculate that it was a major Roman settlement MortimerCat 02:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So why not: In the 19th century, with the arrival of the railway and a surge in the popularity of seaside holidays, the town soon became a prime seaside resort. However, it has suffered from the general trend away from taking holidays within the UK. Mikeo1938 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced those two statements are contradictory - the key word in the intro is almost, denoting that it wasn't a completely new town. I guess both sentences could be clearer, though - saying that "it was a major Roman settlement", makes it sound like the major settlement of that time is the same one we have now, which is not the case. What is really meant is that there was a completely distinct settlement on the same site that subsequently all but vanished, to be replaced much later by a town which predominantly dates from the 19th century onwards.

I've made a slight rewording to this effect, but it possibly now comes out too vague ("in the area"). A similar change in the opposite direction should perhaps be made in the intro - "The modern town was created almost from scratch" or something; I'm not quite sure how to put it, but I think the fact that it was not just smaller but basically non-existent is both true and germane to the summary, so would oppose Mikeo's suggestion. - IMSoP 23:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there was a large increase in size during the 19th century. It was the "almost from scratch" that I did not like. According to the article, Eastbourne was formed from four villages, not "almost from scratch". With a bit of research I found some actual figures, it went from 2000 to 20,000. Once I have that as a verifiable source I will add it. MortimerCat 00:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think talking of it "growing" gives the wrong impression: what is currently considered the town centre wasn't smaller before the 19th Century, it simply didn't exist. The point being that the four villages didn't gradually coalesce, they were deliberately (and quite quickly) subsumed into a new resort. Perhaps I'm tending to overstate the case, but that feels pretty much like "almost from scratch" to me - there are older parts of Eastbourne, but all the "central" parts date from the C19th onward. - IMSoP 13:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

All I know about the early days of Eastbourne has come from this article. You have convinced me that "almost from scratch" is factually accurate. I still would like to replace that phrase though. I have thought about it for ages but have still to come up with an alternative. MortimerCat 08:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Changing the subject, according to the auto peer review the introduction is too short. It needs a couple more paragraphs. MortimerCat 17:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

A comment in the auto peer review was that we had no infobox. This made me realise that our infobox is homemade. I think we should be standardising with the rest of the UK, so I will be replacing the current infobox with the recommended template. MortimerCat 18:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The new box is in place. The original was prettier, but at least we are standardising with the rest of the UK. As a bonus, the yellow dot is appearing in the correct place. Well it is for me using IE7 and Firefox. --MortimerCat 20:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

History

Should we subsection this into periods ie Roman, Norman, WWII, etc? MortimerCat 02:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the existing paragraphs do well enough this already. Mikeo1938 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There was little controversy about development prior to the 1960s so we should not say “Throughout the 20th century”.

The South Cliff Tower predates the TGWU and should come first. It was the former that sparked the creation of the Eastbourne Preservation Society (subsequently Eastbourne Civic Society and now Eastbourne Society). This fact deserves a mention because it was in the 1960s that people woke up to what was happened to the town.

The current wording of this part is somewhat confusing, I'll paste it for ease of reference:

These factors, later exacerbated in 1965 by the construction on the seafront of the 19-storey South Cliff Tower, followed by the glass-plated TGWU headquarters, caused a storm of protest which resulted in the founding in 1961 of what has since become The Eastbourne Society.

Basically, the chronology is all over the place: if the South Cliff Tower and TGWU centre both came after the foundation of the Society, the "storm of protest" must have had some other trigger which is not mentionned - or not really been what the word "storm" conjures up for me at all.

I presume the "later exacerbated in 1965 by" was added to explain that these weren't what led to the foundation, but in that case why put them in the same sentence as though they were? Would it not make more sense to state the facts in chronological order? I'd go ahead and do it, but frankly I'm not confident enough that I've understood the current wording correctly. - IMSoP 21:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Blue Plaques

There should be a section called ‘Notable People’ at the end of History. Here we can lead with a list of those who are commemorated by the various official blue plaques. I don’t think that this list should include contemporary performers. I am in the process of getting the list of blue plaques for inclusion.

I am about to insert references into the History section. (I hope they appear in the correct format.) Mikeo1938 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is my draft of an entry about Blue Plaques in Eastbourne. I suggest that it should go with a sub-heading at the end of the History section. What do people think? Mikeo1938 20:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In 1993, following a suggestion to Eastbourne Borough Council by Eastbourne Civic Society (now (Unfortunately, the above was in a table in MS Word, but it needs reformatting to the page. Could someone pse do this for me? Each table has 4 columns: name, dates, profession, location of plaque.) Mikeo1938 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, I have formatted a table. Some of the data was mixed up, so it needs checking. Cyril Connolly appears twice. I assume the dates are the birth and death dates of the person. Is the length of stay in Eastbourne readily available? I feel that would be more relevant to an Eastbourne article. MortimerCat 22:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the Blue plaque tables should go under Culture as a separate sub-heading. MortimerCat 23:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK about the suggested position. I am still tweaking the information but will be posting the table ASAP. Mikeo1938 14:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Well, I give up! Can someone pse help? I've fiddled with this for ages ... in vain.

What we need is for the 5 distinguished pupils of St Cyprian's School all to appear in the same row - one above the other. Can we get the words, Pupils of St Cyprian's School, above the first of them, Sir Cecil Beaton. We don't want horizontal lines to separate them. These 5 names are all together on the same plaque in Summerdown Road. Mikeo1938 20:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I finally got the table in place. But how do I create a horizontal line to separate it from Media below? Mikeo1938 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The tables look good. An horizontal rule is made by ---- on a line by itself. However, it does say use sparingly. Personally, I think you should not put one, it looks okay as it is. It may look out of place with some of the other skins. MortimerCat 17:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just realised that the line goes underneath the heading and not at the end of a piece. I'm going to write a few notes about the association of the various people with the town ... whether it was their home, or whatever. Mikeo1938 19:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have references for the latest para about Blue Plaques; these will appear shortly. Mikeo1938 21:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC) I don't understand why St Cyprian's School in my new para does not link to the wiki article of that name. I mean, why is it in red? Mikeo1938 21:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:The problem is the single quote. The one in the paragraph slopes to the left ’, the article uses a straight one ' . MortimerCat 22:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC) VMT and noted Mikeo1938 07:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the association paragraph is too big? Perhaps we could split it in two, moving the top half underneath the top table, to which it relates? MortimerCat 22:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK: We could move everything before Charlie Chester to a position below the top table and leave the notes about the people who have private plaques below the second table. Would you like to do that? I'm anxious to finish off the outside painting! Mikeo1938 13:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is Henry G Longhurst? I would like to create a stub for him to eliminate that red link. A small search found Henry Carpenter Longhurst (1909–1978), golf journalist and commentator. Is this him? The G is a C, and I found no mention of him being an MP? MortimerCat 13:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Yes, the G should indeed be C (Carpenter). I suggest you create that stub and I'll try to find out about the MP matter. Mikeo1938 14:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC) OK, I've found a reference. He was the MP (National Conservative) for Acton from 1943 to 1945. There's a reference under Acton in Wiki. Mikeo1938 16:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC) You'll see that I've corrected Longhurst's initial. Hope you'll do the stub. Mikeo1938 17:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Other notable residents

I discovered a category Category:People from Eastbourne. Maybe linking to this category, for other famous residents see People from Eastbourne? Maybe losing a few names in this section? Could be controversial! MortimerCat 18:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the removal of the individuals from Trivia to Culture, I am unhappy with the heading, ‘Other famous residents’. The word ‘famous’ is too strong when applied to some of these people (“Purley, famous place – say no more!”) and they were not all residents. How about ‘Other people associated with Eastbourne’ or 'Others associated with Eastbourne' (?) Mikeo1938 22:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think just Other Residents. Although, we could lose the section altogether. Move the ones who were educated in Eastbourne, eg Prunella Scales, to Education. The bands and DJ to Arts. etc. MortimerCat 23:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps lose the two red link residents as they are not notable enough to warrant their own article. (or fix the link). MortimerCat 00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be prefer to put them under 'Other Residents' and omit the 'famous'. It seems better to keep them in this section rather than put them elsewhere. In most cases, they will simply consist of a one-off reference. And let's drop the red link entries. Mikeo1938 21:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Notable" is often more accurate than "famous". The section should stay though in general since many readers would want to find a list of notable people who have lived/visited the town. Plus some people (Bodkin Adams) will hardly fit easily into another section. Malick78 19:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been convinced the section should stay and it has already been renamed to "notable". What is the general opinion on reducing the size by moving people to other sections, mentioning Prunella Scales under Education for example. MortimerCat 19:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Geography

I have described the geology of the area. It mentions the geography occasionally, but that probably should be expanded on as it is the title of this section. Climate should also go here, we have the sunshine hours fact, but we need a general climate description too. MortimerCat 13:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Districts

Are the various places included within the districts officially recognised as such by EBC? (BTW, and purely as a matter of interest for here, the term Little Chelsea was dreamt up as a marketing ploy by an estate agent; it did not exist prior to the early 1970s. Of course, the ploy has been successful and the term is now in general use.)

Mikeo1938 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently there are nine wards in Eastbourne: Ratton, Hampden Park, Old Town, Langney, St Anthony's, Meads, Devonshire, Sovereign and Upperton. Downside, Ocklynge and Roselands no longer exist as a political Ward. The districts mentioned in the article do not seem to have any official basis. I recommend rewriting the article with nine paragraphs, one for each Ward, briefly describing each area.

Further questions: Is the Norway section notable enough for inclusion? Are there any facts behind the selling the Holywell cottages story? Does anyone consider Polegate, Jevington, Stone Cross or Pevensey to be part of Eastbourne? MortimerCat 00:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should use the 9 official wards. The outlying districts such as Polegate are not part of E'bne.

The comment about Norway does not belong here.

I've never heard the story about the Hollywell cottages. I believe that the fishermen were forced to move when the area was exploited for the town's water supply. This was when the Bedford well became contaminated. I will check this.

Mikeo1938 14:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Having second thoughts about using Wards in this section as these could go into Politics. Are there any other non-political district breakdowns in Eastbourne? MortimerCat 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Transport

The railway arrived in E’bne in 1849. It had reached Sussex before then. Before 1849, people had to travel by other means to Polegate.

Mikeo1938 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A problem arose with MortimerCat’s edit to my wording when the item about the buses was moved back into Transport from History. In fact, today’s company, ‘Eastbourne Buses’, was not formed in recent years following complaints about the poor service provided by independent operators. The complaints were about the poor service provided independent operators before 1903; and it was these early 20C complaints which gave rise to the creation of the Eastbourne Corporation Motor Omnibus Department. Dave Spencer is clear about this in his book. In Chapter 1, he writes of the poor service by independent operators such as Chapman and Sons, and goes on to say: “In response to complaints about transport in the town the Corporation gained powers to run its own bus service.”

I agree that the item is now well placed in Transport, but propose that we return to the original wording to give:

“Buses are operated by Eastbourne Buses offering journeys to all parts of the town and surrounding areas. Following complaints about the poor service provided by independent operators, the County Borough of Eastbourne in 1903 became first local authority in the world authorised to run motorbuses. This long history is a source of pride for the current operator, Eastbourne Buses, which is a company part-owned by the Borough Council.”

(The final sentence makes it clear that the bus service of today buses is not solely a municipal undertaking, as had been the case between 1903 and the creation of the present company.)

:Reverted MortimerCat 00:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Economy

Very short. We cannot leave wholesaler Gardners Books can probably claim, we need facts! MortimerCat 02:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Culture:Media

I suggest a criteria for inclusion for people, such as having their own Wiki article. I noticed Rooster is pointing to a chicken article. We want to avoid a list of names. If we are going to namedrop, then we should say when and what the association is with Eastbourne. We also need to consider the importance of the association. Is Eddie Izzard going to Eastbourne college really significant to the rest of the world?

See comment above about blue plaques.

Mikeo1938 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an informative use for TV/film appearances in that a viewer knows he is seeing part of the town. A list of names should be expanded to include a description of the scene. Again an inclusion criteria should be set. Was the scene recognisable as Eastbourne? Is the film/programme likely to be seen again?

Agreed: It would be necessary to provide dates and brief details of the film/show. Not just a title.

Mikeo1938 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We have Seven Sisters and Cuckmere Haven mentioned. As it is debatable that these are in Eastbourne, I would suggest that these facts are more appropriate under those articles. MortimerCat 02:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Culture:Recreation

Fine on this new section ... I've done a minor edit. However, we need a definite article before the first "pier". Also, I guess you mean "consists of" rather than "exists". Now back to the painting ... Mikeo1938 14:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

First you see it - now you don't! The apostrophe has gone AWOL again. We need - children's adventure parks - Mikeo1938 18:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I mean - children's adventure park - Mikeo1938 18:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Having researched the apostrophe, I think it should be childrens' adventure [1] being a plural posessive. However, English was my worst subject at school. MortimerCat 00:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Hello again: No, I can assure you that it's children's ... there's a rule if you're uncertain. You convert the problem into the "of" form and then you put the apostrophe after the word that takes "of". So: the house of the boy = the boy's house; the house of the boys = the boys' house. The house of the child = the child's house; the house of the children = the children's house; the house of the man = the man's house; the house of the men = the men's house. Fiendish! But on anothe tack, can you pse insert 6 Bolton Road into the "location" cell of the table. Soddy has two plaques, as you'll see from my edit. Perhaps the other one had been removed by workmen ... (?) ... but it's again in situ. Mikeo1938 08:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Culture:Sports

I have done a general tidy, removing NPOV stuff. I am dubious about the Direct Line championship being the oldest championship, the only mentions I can find are from people quoting Wikipedia. Does any have any further information, or can elaborate on the actual claim. MortimerCat 05:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Politics

A paragraph for each type of possible election. European, Parliamentary, County Council, Local Council. Indicating current party etc, but linked to the article for the constituency.

Ian Gow should be mentioned.

Labour candidates are usually considered to have little chance in elections This should be removed as NPOV and weasel words, unless someone can cite a valid source. MortimerCat 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Rewritten with sources, but I am sure the grammar needs tidying. MortimerCat 00:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC) The new section looks fine; hope that I can help generally but will be busy for the next few days. Mikeo1938 08:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Must update fully for the May 2007 local election. MortimerCat 11:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just done this while looking up references. - IMSoP 20:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Education

Various assertions here, but the section is lacking in references. Does anyone know the source of hard information:statistical and so on? Mikeo1938 09:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I suggest losing this section completely, the first step would be to move the entries to an appropriate other section. Later deciding if any irrelevant to Eastbourne. MortimerCat 11:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This section now only contains personalities. If we move these ASAP, perhaps en bloc, then the trivia section can be removed helping to prevent further trivia. MortimerCat 17:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC) I also feel that Trivia seems out of place in an encyclopaedia article. Mikeo1938 22:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Trivia should be removed as a discrete section. However, certain items (with appropriate references) could be incorporated (if not already appearing) into other sections. I am preparing a list of notable people whose association with the town is marked by blue plaques. Mikeo1938 22:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm having 2nd thoughts about Trivia ... I've seen this in lots of articles in Wiki. Mikeo1938 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:Trivia sections are in a lot of articles, but all the style documents frown upon it. See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles for example. It has helped collect a lot of facts which we are now incorporating into the main document. My personal goal is to get a Feature article status, which means following the guidelines. Of course, this will have to be a consensus opinion. MortimerCat 23:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've gone ahead and got rid of this section, finding homes for all the remaining facts. I was initially put off by our only lists of residents being under "blue plaques" and "media", but thinking about Michael Fish I realised that the latter was simply the wrong heading. I think this is a good reason for not having a trivia section now that the article is a decent size: if you can't find a good place in the article for a fact that is worth mentioning, then there's a problem with the structure of the article, and filing under "miscellaneous" won't help us.

Unfortunately, that still leaves a rather higgledy-piggledy list under my new heading of Other famous residents - no particular order, and rather different levels of detail... - IMSoP 18:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

References

I just converted this section to a small style. I think it looks better, but what do others think? MortimerCat 21:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. It looks better like that. Mikeo1938 14:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

I think this section should only have links to sites that has general information about Eastbourne, not specific items or advertising. The specific links should be moved in the article, for example the link to the Military museum should appear in the Tourism section. MortimerCat 16:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Photographs

We should review the photographs too. I will point out this is not criticising the artistic merits of the photograph, but its suitability for use in this article whose function is to give information about the town of Eastbourne.

• Eastbourne Redoubt

I removed the model picture because this is an Eastbourne article, not a fort article. This current picture could be improved with a wider angle shot showing the context in which the Redoubt lies within the current seafront landscape.

• Martello Tower

This is a better picture for an Eastbourne article. You can see how other buildings have been built surrounding the tower. Perhaps a similar shot including the sea?

• Eastbourne Pier and Beach

A good, typical postcard, showing the pier and beach. A definite keep.

• Eastbourne from Beachy Head

This is a good view for the geography section. It gives a good indication of the height of the downs, although maybe taken on a clearer day.

• Eastbourne Bandstand

Perfect.

• Eastbourne pier at night.

I suggest this one should be removed. We have two other pictures of the pier, and this one does not provide any more information.

• General Von Arnim's Staff Car

This should be removed as this is an Eastbourne article.
MortimerCat 11:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)