Talk:Storrington and Sullington
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Merge proposal
[edit]Guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements state that ideally the civil parish should be the catch-all article, avoiding single line articles on every village and landmark within the parish.
Therefore, I suggest that villages within the parish with a one or two sentence article, ie Sullington to be merged and redirected to this parish article. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree
- Storrington and Sullington are very distinct places, with separate histories. Although the articles are not substantial yet, they could become so. This page is the least useful of the three. --Doug (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Storrington and Sullington. 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) 17:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)