Talk:Southwick, West Sussex
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Cardinal Newman
[edit]Not only is the comment that Cardinal Newman Catholic School in Hove is Brighton's best non-private school subjective and non-neutral, it is also arguably incorrect. A brief glace at the league tables show a number of community schools, such as Blatchington Mill & Dorothy Stringer, achieved better GCSE results last year. I've therefore removed the claim and don't expect it to be re-submitted without an over-ruling citation. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 22:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Southwick as part of Brighton
[edit]Southwick is not part of Brighton. Southwick comes under Adur District Council. Southwick is in West Sussex. Brighton is part of Brighton and Hove unitary Authority. Geographically Brighton is in East Sussex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.234.104 (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest that as an accurate alternative Southwick is described as part of the Brighton/Worthing/Littlehampton conurbation?
Curtis31992 (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Pronunciation
[edit]Unlike most Southwicks in the UK, Southwick, West Sussex is not pronounced suthik/sʌðɪk. This peculiarity has been noted on this wiki before, by user Sussexonian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2012_January_10#British_place_name_Slurvian_pronunciations User Mpvo666 appears to have introduced the inaccurate pronunciation to this page, and users Apewty111, Polly Tunnel, Charlesdrakew and myself have attempted to correct things but Mpvo666 persists in forcing the delusion of suthik/sʌðɪk. A brief look at their talk page suggests that this isn't an isolated incident of revert warring over bad pronunciation edits.
I have sourced a recent verbal instance of "Southwick" in the media from Cllr Neil Parkin, both Leader of Adur District Council and a resident of Southwick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZLD_lAz1ZA&t=1m34s Here is the councillors page on the council website should youtube not be a good enough source for his identity alone: http://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk/councillors-and-mps/councillors-adur/cllr-neil-parkin/ I feel that his residency, and especially his position, adds significant weight to the local pronunciation of Southwick/saʊθwɪk. I, of course, have further independent video of locals speaking the town's name and can provide links to them if required, although they don't trump Mr Parkin for credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.162.68 (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well, there you go. You found a source. That was literally all I was after. So now all we need to do is actually put it in the article. There was no need to rant about, or insult me on this article, this talk page and my own talk page. If you actually put this source in the first time round, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. Just add it to the article now and call it a day.
- Also, I would just like to point out that you reverted my changes three times in a row before I did, so you have just accused me or something you had done earlier. If anything, I should have reported you. Mvpo666 (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Go ahead and report me. It's pretty obvious that 22:47, 14 January 2016, the time of your third reversion, is before 23:23, 14 January 2016, the time of mine. Also, while you're preaching about who should be doing what, how about you apply that to yourself regarding citation. If you'd have sourced your 'suthik' edit, this wouldn't have been an issue. In future either don't make uncited edits, or try to refrain from claiming the high ground when someone else does the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.162.68 (talk)
- Firstly, 23:23, 14 January 2016, was your fourth revision, not third (your third was at 17:42 on the same day). Secondly, the point I was making about citing the article was not that you should have cited your edit (even though we both should have, you are right about that); it was that you should have cited your article before attempting to insult another user for their edits (which is what you have done). Thirdly, I really hope you were not serious when you wrote "try to refrain from claiming the high ground when someone else does the same" because 1) I never did that and 2) that is precisely what you have been doing the entire time (see previous sentence). Mvpo666 (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- "If you actually put this source in the first time round, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place." <-- That's you claiming the high ground by blaming others for the exchange when in fact you made the first edit on the topic and didn't provide a source. Pure hypocrisy. You've only yourself to blame. Also, counting is incredibly hard isn't it? I've made three edits in total on the article, so you claiming I've somehow made four revisions to it is another instance of you being, at best, incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.162.68 (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, 23:23, 14 January 2016, was your fourth revision, not third (your third was at 17:42 on the same day). Secondly, the point I was making about citing the article was not that you should have cited your edit (even though we both should have, you are right about that); it was that you should have cited your article before attempting to insult another user for their edits (which is what you have done). Thirdly, I really hope you were not serious when you wrote "try to refrain from claiming the high ground when someone else does the same" because 1) I never did that and 2) that is precisely what you have been doing the entire time (see previous sentence). Mvpo666 (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Go ahead and report me. It's pretty obvious that 22:47, 14 January 2016, the time of your third reversion, is before 23:23, 14 January 2016, the time of mine. Also, while you're preaching about who should be doing what, how about you apply that to yourself regarding citation. If you'd have sourced your 'suthik' edit, this wouldn't have been an issue. In future either don't make uncited edits, or try to refrain from claiming the high ground when someone else does the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.162.68 (talk)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Southwick, West 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/20110608075926/http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/communityandliving/census2001/pop_parish_summary.pdf to http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/communityandliving/census2001/pop_parish_summary.pdf
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) 01:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)