Talk:Newhaven

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Sussex Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 6 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Newhaven, East Sussex to Newhaven. The result of the discussion was moved.

Untitled

This page is very bare indeed. I have added a little on serious local interest areas such as Tide Mills, the Seaplane Base, and the Heritage Marice Hospital, but the page needs taming and tidying, plus a lot more references and some decent pictures. Fiddle Faddle 21:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposals

In accordance with [1] the Wikipedia notes on writing about settlements, one of the recommendations is that, in order to reduce the number of stubs, villages and other settlements (and in this case, other things) within the place should be in one article. Hence the proposals.

I am now setting about a complete rewrite of this article, using the recommendations, so would be glad of time to do so before further comments are made! Peter Shearan (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

Support - probably with the exception of Newhaven Incinerator Blackwave...... (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I feel that the Marconi Radio Station and the Seaplane base should really have their articles expanded, rather than merge into this article. That being said, provided redirects are set up and no information is lost I will not oppose a merge. I simply feel that there is better scope to expand the other articles as free standing articles. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree that it would be better if the stubs expanded but I do not see that happening. A larger Newhaven article will attract more editors and increase the chances of the subjects being expanded upon. With luck, one day there will be enough to split them out again. MortimerCat (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As both Fiddle Faddle and MortimerCat state above, it would be good to see the stubs expanded but until there is enough material to enlarge them then merging them to make a single article makes sense to me. They can always be unmerged at a later date. With regard to theNewhaven incinerator, that needs a separate and neutral write-up, laying-out the pros and cons of the development.--Kennelliver (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all other articles are stubs, with minimal work in the past Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 19:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Neutral, but weak agree - I would not like the Denton stub merged with Newhaven, one is a village the other a industrial port, please don't merge. unsigned

Merge Proposals again.

As part of my Sussex merge purge, I have removed some of the merge tags here. The Marconi stub already redirected to a Marconi article. The incinerator and seaplane I now think should be left as their own article. As Fiddle Faddle said above, they need work, but there is better scope left on their own. The Maritime museum article is a one-liner and I will merge that in due course. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tide Mills

I discovered Tide Mills is actually in the parish of Seaford, therefore technically its mention should be moved to Seaford, East Sussex. I left it behind just in case it has a greater association with Newhaven, which means it probably should stay. Maybe a local can comment. MortimerCat (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

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.^[?]
This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
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]^[?]
The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.^[?]
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, Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 14:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Newhaven, East Sussex. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Newhaven, East Sussex. 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/20061004034125/http://ncinewhaven.org.uk/ to http://www.ncinewhaven.org.uk/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus, WP:SMALLDETAILS applies. – robertsky (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newhaven, East Sussex → Newhaven – most popular city with the exact name (not the New Haven in Connecticut JuniperChill (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). JuniperChill (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Many people might be looking for any of the other pages, even the ones with spaces in their names. Honestly, I think the safest bet is to keep it the way it is, in which "Newhaven" is a redirect to the disambiguation page "New Haven (disambiguation)". Paintspot Infez (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wondered about this myself, it gets the most views for the single word[[2]] and appears to be the most important place with just 1 word as the Edinburgh one isn't a separate settlement and the other 2 places are much smaller. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There's no ambiguity with any New Haven variant, per WP:SMALLDETAILS, and of the Newhaven entries this appears to have the greatest long-term and common usage significance. The other localities are tiny, and while the horse was a Melbourne Cup winner, its lasting significance is probably less than an enduring town. — Amakuru (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Amakuru. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.