Talk:Eastbourne/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Importance

Hmm, is Eastbourne, UK really any more important than Eastubourne, NZ? It is to me, since it's where my parents live, but I wasn't sure it had any global reason to take precedence. If there is no such reason, I think the previous disambig page should stay, since someone searching for "Eastbourne" is equally likely to be looking for either. - IMSoP 13:41, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The NZ one is much smaller, I think the current setup is sensible (im biased tho) unless there are more eastbournes added to wikipedia ~~----

Eastbourne, UK is notable for a number of things (proximity to Beachy Head, foundation by Duke of Devonshire, election battleground) but also notable because of its reputation as a retirement home. It has been satirized in Monty Python and many other British comedies. The average intelligent Brit knows Eastbourne and has prejudices about it. Is Eastbourne NZ notable? The Land 15:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know but I'd say the one in the UK came first historically which, if the two are of otherwise equal notability, gives this one the slight edge... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:51, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My Town

Yes Eastbourne is a big factor of England. We have more than the Duke of Devonshire and some retired citizens in Eastbourne.

Parlimentary Eastbourne is and always has been closely faught between two political parties.

Liberal Democrats (Stephen Lloyd) Conservative (Nigel Waterson)

1,000 votes decided this years seat, which just goes to show it's a heated part of the political news.

Eastbourne is second in the road to Wimbledon in term's of Tennis.

Eastbourne is quite possibly one of the most beautiful towns down the south east coast of England.

Eastbournes a popular holiday resort in England.

Eastbourne has a very large foreign student language system.

Eastbourne was home to the ex-pop band "Toploader"

Eastbourne is home of Langney Priory the oldest building in East Sussex dated back to the 900's

Theres my synopsis on why Eastbourne should be mentioned first over NZ's Eastbourne.

Luke May 18 Year Old Eastbourne Resident.

Questionable additions

I have removed the following addition from the article, because I'm not sure of it's veracity:

It is also famous for having over 35 millionaires and is the birth place of jack dee (comedian) Toploader (band) Some of the biggest ethinc minorities are, Filipinos, Chinese, Greeks, Italians.

• I've never heard of Eastbourne being "famous" for its number of millionaires, and "over 35" seems odd without a reference to back it up; a quick search on Google did turn up this PDF claiming 114 millionaires, although the stated postcode (BN20) is actually composed primarily of the rural area to the West of Eastbourne (it touches Old Town, including my house, but I doubt that's where the millionaires are).
• According to the bbc.co.uk Guide to Comedy, Jack Dee was born "in Petts Wood, near Orpington, south-east of London"
• Toploader really did come from here, they used to work at the Chasely Trust situated on South Cliff Avenue, but as one-hit wonders, do they merit a mention? Perhaps if the article gets rearranged a little we could accomodate them somehow...
• The 2001 UK Census lists Chinese as the most significant ethnic minority, with just 443 members (which I make roughly 0.5% of the population); there may well be a handful of Filipinos, and I personally know Greeks, Germans, and Iranians, but listing all those would IMHO present an incorrect picture of a town which is (by my calculations on that census data) 96.6% white, with no one group occupying the remainder.

As ever, any comments welcome. - IMSoP 13:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

* Should the fact that Roger Moore used to live there and Eddie Izzard attended Eastbourne College be included?? - swedishdave

• "Eastbourne was recently found to be the 52nd most dangerous place to live in England and Wales in the study "Urban Crime Rankings" (2006). However, as there were only 55 towns in the study, Eastbourne is also the 4th safest place to live." whoever wrote this is a genious! Swedishdave 12:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that sentence, as coming 52nd out 55 really doesn't mean much - I mean, would Eastbourne still have been 52nd out of 155? Or would it have been 152nd? - IMSoP 13:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

my point exactly, i didnt want to remove it myself because i found it funny. well done. Swedishdave 00:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure where to put this...

in the trivia/film secion part of pear harobour was filmed here... this was a major film. i would add it myself but i cant remember how to do it (havent used wiki in a long time!!)oh, and thanks for adding my roger moore fact in!Swedishdave 00:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Tourist PR talk

OK, I know that Eastbourne is part of the tourist industry, but this article tends very much towards PR: But then that may be because I am a Hastings man myself? Peter Shearan 09:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Note of Additions

• I added the local free magazines website (East Magazine) to the links section. - swedishdave

Hastings Direct Tennis Competition

The Hastings Direct company isn't based in Hastings, it is actually based in it's neighbouring town of Bexhill-on-Sea.

Freshprince 13:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh please! not it's neighbouring town .... Peter Shearan 09:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Brighton Uni

The part of brighton uni is not in polegate, it is actually in Willingdon, which is part of eastbourne, as polegate is a seperate town and not part of eastbourne.

Wha'? The only parts of Brighton Uni I can think of are in Meads, right the other side of town from both Polegate and Willingdon. Incidentally, Willingdon is not usually considered part of Eastbourne - it's actually governed by Wealden District Council - though the distinction is certainly vague for many purposes. - IMSoP 01:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

willingdon is considered part of eastbourne. and yes i agree... the only part of brighton uni i can think of is in meads. Swedishdave 00:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed non-notable

I've taken out the following, as I'm not convinced it's noteworthy enough to include. If "BBD Ninjutsu" means something significant, then it needs to be explained and/or linked, as the wording seems like little more than a local club:

Eastbourne is also home to the BBD Ninjutsu Admin center. Based in "Battle Orders" and co-ordinated by Graham Barton.

- IMSoP 13:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

what ive wrote on eastbourne is true, i know because im a native of this town, who ever is disagreeing obviously has never been to eastbourne

now whoever keeps changing the work ive done, stop it.

Since you weren't logged in when you left that comment (see Wikipedia:Why create an account?), I can't see which contributions you made, and therefore discuss why they were reverted or modified. Certainly most of the information I've seen added recently is true, but a lot of it is not particularly encyclopedic. But like I say, I've no idea what you added, so I can't answer your particular case unless you go into more detail.

Meanwhile, I've just removed a further non-notable addition, as follows; I'm not sure "the only retail business of its type in East Sussex" really qualifies as "unique", and it smacks of advertising to me. I'm happy to be corrected, though, or to discuss my reasoning.

"Eastbourne has some unique businesses, Semantics Glass Engraving Studio hand engraves glass and is the only retail business of its type found in East Sussex."

Oh, I'm not sure about the neutrality of this one either; the "grandeur" of Beachy Head comes from the fact that is a ginormous chalk cliff, not from any particular feature (which, despite living here for 20 years, I recognise neither by name nor description). I'm a little bit shy of removing the fact that it fell down (although, you know, that's what chalk cliffs do!), but I think it needs much thought in wording.

"Beachy Head lost much of its grandeur in 2001 when, following a winter of heavy rains, the Devil's Chimney a distinctive pinnacle of chalk that dominated the cliffs, collapsed into the sea."

- IMSoP 14:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr IMSoP well good MOANING to you ! Oh come on Beachy Head was certainly "grand" before the collapse of its main distinguishing feature the Devils Chimney in 2001 and in my opinion still is . Since this collapse many new features have opened up and the whole site is constantly changing . You say you've lived here for 20 years but have you actually been up there and LOOKED ! If you cannot see the grandeur and fascination in this place then I feel sorry for you . Go and live somewhere really interesting like Crawley [citation needed !] because this place is wasted on you ! Oh yes and I loved your comment "that's what chalk cliffs do" - cynical , sad or what ? And no I'm not a geologist - talking of which can we have a geology section please ?! K

- Kittyalex 12:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Current problems with this article

Firstly, thanks on behalf of our readers to those who have expanded this article so much. It's now reached the size, however, where we need to start making some decisions.

The main point I want to raise is organisation; right now, the article is divided into 14 sections, and while there is plenty of text to support each one, some of them do seem to overlap, leading the same information to appear in more than one place. For instance:

• 'Reputation' is mainly about tourism, but we also have a 'Leisure and Recreation'...
• Are 'Parks' not 'Leisure and Recreation'? And do we need to say so much about them anyway?
• 'Culture' includes appearances in film and TV, a couple of notable residents, and a museum; a mish-mash, really...
• 'Trivia' is an unfortunate catch-all heading, and much of this should now be in individual sections - either existing or new. Much of it is also unattributed, which is a shame with some of the more statistical items.
• 'Events' is hard to distinguish from 'Leisure and Recreation', 'Culture', and the current contents of 'Reputation'; obviously, Airbourne is an event, but does the fact that the LPO visit annually really belong in the same section?

I notice that WikiProject UK geography has a list of suggested sections on their How to write about settlements page; perhaps this could be the basis for restructuring.

I think we do also need to be careful not to include non-notable information, particularly things which you would put in a promotional leaflet but could do so for any town. Sections like 'Economy', 'Sports', 'Education', and 'Transport' are particularly hard to present neutrally, because those who know about them will generally be local residents for whom the traffic is particularly annoying, the sports teams particularly fun, etc. We need to ask ourselves: is the traffic busy compared to other towns; are there significantly more, or less, or different, sports teams than in other towns; etc. If the answer's no, we can probably leave a lot of it to the reader's imagination.

OK, I've waffled on long enough about what I think's wrong; I should point out both that there is much that I think is good, and that I am fully aware that some of the problems are my own fault. It's just that the article's on the scale now that it's getting hard to just weigh in and fix it all.

So, what are your thoughts? - IMSoP 18:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote about george 3rds children spending time in eastbourne which started the town of as a resort centre, someone wiped it off, i wrote an article about the reddoubt fortress, someone changed it complety, and about the minority groups, one only has to walk about the town and see minoritie groups, and the chinese ARE THE LARGEST minority group so someone who comment on that obviously did not read it properly. for those arguing about the location of brighton uni, its in the meads and the sports field is in willingdon. and IMSOP are you sure you live in this town, because your talking crap, and writing info thats far from true. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.22.209 (talk • contribs)

I agree with using How to write about settlements as a basis. I would suggest removing the trivia section as a start, as that is frowned upon, incorporating them into the main article where appropriate.

I removed Trivia relating to William the Conqueror. It is generally accepted that he landed in Pevensey Bay. Whilst it is possible he could have landed on what is now Eastbourne beach, this conjecture would be better placed in the Battle of Hastings article. MortimerCat 02:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to the 'anonymous' contributor above, yes I am sure I live here, unless the last 20 years of my life have been an extremely vivid hallucination! If I am adding information that is factually incorrect, then please a) fix it and b) point it out to me; this is a collaborative effort, after all, and I'm under no illusion of being infallible, just trying my best like everyone else. To your more sensible points:

• The info about George III's children currently begins the third paragraph of the history section; it certainly deserves a mention, and if it was removed earlier it may have been because the poor structure of the article made it hard to know where to fit certain facts.
• I'm sorry you weren't happy to see your article on the Redoubt changed so much, but as it says when you edit an article "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." If there are specific ways in which you think the article has become worse, perhaps you should raise them with other editors on that article's talk page. (To be clear, I've never editted that article to date.)
• As for the ethnic minority thing, I guess my gut feeling is that Eastbourne is very much less multi-ethnic than some other places, and my interpretation of the census data seemed to bear that out. However, I do know people from all sorts of ethnic backgrounds, including Chinese, and perhaps the statistics are worth mentionning. I guess if we stick to the facts and don't hype it as a great centre of multiculturalism, there's nothing wrong with having the kind of info we have right now.
• Yes, my parents reminded me of the university sports fields in Willingdon; I was thinking only of the buildings scattered around Meads. I'll mention this in the article, and my apologies for not realising this connection earlier.

Meanwhile, I'll remove the comment about William the Conqueror again (I agree with MortimerCat about its notability, particularly given its unnecessarily chatty style) and prune some other parts which, while mostly true, don't seem to add much to the article. I hope none of these removals prove too controversial, but I think the article will flow better if we try to keep it fairly tight. Feel free to disagree, but I'd be interested to know your reasoning. - IMSoP 19:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Headings

Reorganising the article would be a good next step towards featured article status. It has already been suggested that some section contents overlap, so we need to merge and reduce these. I hereby put forward the following section headings as the ones we want to have in our final article. This is basically a summarised list from How to write about settlements.

• Intro - Brief summary
• History - Early history (Stone, Iron, Bronze, Roman); important surviving historic buildings
• Geography - geology, landscape, climate.
• Transport
• Districts
• Economy - Major industries and employers (including tourism) - include statistics.
• Culture - Arts, media and sport. Local theatres, radio stations and sports teams. Associated artists and musicians.
• Politics - Makeup and activities of the local council and Westminster representation.
• Demographics - census data, population change, age structure, race, religion, etc etc
• References: We should be citing sources throughout the text using the footnotes markup.
• External links: Links should give the reader more information on the place. Business directories are not very useful.

The article now follows the above guidelines. MortimerCat 16:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

William the Conqueror landing

No-one knows the exact spot William the Conqueror landed when he invaded in 1066 , but it was somewhere around here ! It is rumoured that as he clambered up the shingle he fell and cut himself . So if you find a stone with blood on it ... !!??

This paragraph keeps appearing. It gets removed because 1 the style is 'chatty' not encyclopedic, 2 It is not relevant to Eastbourne because it is generally accepted that he landed in Pevensey Bay. and 3 It is not a fact, its a rumour. A more suitable article would be the Battle of Hastings but it would need a valid citation. MortimerCat 21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

well hello CatMortimer ! Yes I confess it was me who wrote this dodgy paragragh about William the Conqueror ! (exclamation marks and all !!!) and I'm sorry for the bit about him visiting the Arndale Centre before going to battle ! Fair enough my entry was as you say "chatty" , but I do feel that William the Conqueror merits an entry here . It was doubtless the most important event in Britain's history let alone Eastbourne's ! . The history books say he made landfall first below Beachy Head , but due to the conditions sailed further east to set up camp . At the time the coastline around Pevensey Bay would have been completely different with salt-marsh and inlets so who's to say exactly where he landed . Besides when we say Pevensey Bay we're surely talking about the bay itself , as opposed to the coastal community , and this must surely include Eastbourne ? Also is it NOT fair to quote rumours that have gone down in history like our William cutting himself as he climbed the beach and taking it as an omen ? This is depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry is it not ? Oh I don't know - if we look under Nottingham is Robin Hood taken as fact or legend ?

Anyway thanks for your comments . I take these on board and look forward to your comments on the above ! I won't add anything else without your say-so (now you can't tell if I'm being serious or not can you ? Perhaps there should be an alternative Wikipedia with spoof articles . I was bought uo on Peter Simple's spoof column in the Telegraph and believed it at the time !)

PS I assume it was you who also removed my bit about Eastenders being filmed on Seaford Head . Fair dos this was way outside Eastbourne . But shouldn't all film and tv entries include the precise location they were made . You can't just say "Licence to kill" was filmed in Eastbourne for example without saying exactly where !? Cheers K

Kittyalex 12:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I deleted the paragraph was because of the frivolous statement "So if you find a stone with blood on it". The other reason is that there are better articles to put that information, such as Pevensey or Norman conquest of England.

I accept that the exact landing spot is unknown, but the overwhelming evidence points to Pevensey. In 1066 the area was an actual bay, there is a nice map here [1]. As a planned military operation, the bay would be chosen for a sheltered landing, and the advantage of the Roman fort nearby. The Eastbourne area provides no shelters, and a formidable obstacle if they landed at the foot of the cliffs.

There is a story that William fell on the beach. However, these stories are often found to come from later writings, with no evidence that it actually took place. The Victorians were great ones at embellishing the past. This is why Wikipedia asks for citations.

I removed the non-Eastbourne film locations because this is an Eastbourne article. The ones I left did not say where they were filmed so I did not have a valid reason to remove them (I did not put them in originally). With a bit of research I may delete those too. But on the subject of film locations, we should be a inclusion criteria. For example, only include popular (ones that get over a million hits on Google?) films that show recognisable features.

MortimerCat 01:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

hello again . Thanks for your comments . Well I'd still argue till I'm blue in the face for an entry for William the Conker under Eastbourne but then the Norman Army did paint their faces blue before going into battle didn't they (being FRIVOLOUS again aren't I ?) I reckon it's at least 50/50 where he landed was within the present "Eastbourne" boundary ie the far side of the Crumbles development . But I need proof don't I !? Cheers K

Kittyalex 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A coherent sentence stating that there was a possibility that William landed in the area known todays as the Crumbles would have been acceptable as long as there were no jokes about stopping at Frankie & Benny's. But as you say, you would need to quote an expert of the same opinion, especially as this exchange of views is now part of the permanent record of the Eastbourne Wikipedia article.

The falling over story is not relevant to Eastbourne, or even Pevensey. It is mentioned in the Battle of Hastings article, and even here does not quote the source of the legend! MortimerCat 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

hello again . Ok William the Conqueror and Eastbourne are a lost cause ! Again I take your comments on board but I'm intrigued - what is your precise role in this matter ! And have you any idea how many people read this stuff - how many "hits" would our Eastbourne section get per day for example ? Well thanks again and I will give you +ve feedback - oh sorry this is Wikipedia not eBay - I do get confused ! Loved your F&B joke by the way . Cheers K

Kittyalex 10:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WWII Bombing

This is my first edit and I apologise for any breaches in convention. As you see, I’ve added additional details about WW2. The existing article suggested that bomb damage was due to the jettisoning of bombs by returning aircraft. Although this did happen on occasions (16 Aug 40 for sure and probably 31 Mar 44), it should not form the main thrust of the account.

Mikeo1938 09:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Mikeo1938 09:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mikeo1938 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Added a comma to my para

Mikeo1938 20:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC) More tinkering. In the para about WW2, replaced a link which I had accidentally deleted; and added another for D-Day

A quick lesson in citing references

The main failing of the Eastbourne article was the lack of references. Officially every fact must come from another source and we need to say what that source was. To do this we use the <ref></ref> markup. For example we write

Eastbourne is in England<ref>http://www.multimap.com</ref>

This appears on the final page as Eastbourne is in England¹

The information can come from books, newspapers, websites etc, but full details need to be given. Authors names, dates, publishers ISBN number etc. There are a range of templates on Wikipedia:Citation templates that can be used. If you are not sure what to do, put the source information on the page anyway, another editor will tidy it up for you. MortimerCat 12:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added two refs to the para about WW2. They appear to upset the line spacing a little, but perhaps this always happens.

Mikeo1938 21:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Images of England

According to Images of England there are over 100 listed buildings in Eastbourne - if might be worth checking if these (at least grade I & II*) are worthy of mention. I've done the Congress theatre as an example. — Rod ^talk 22:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I never thought about using the IOE site and I was one of their photographers! There are four II* in Eastbourne, which will go into the article. Thanks. MortimerCat 23:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have discovered that "Search by Postal Town" on the ioe site does not work properly. There are two Grade I listed buildings in Eastbourne. Compton Place and the stables at Compton Place. There are seven Grade II* buildings, Congress Theatre, All Saints Hospital, Claremont Hotel, Bronze statue, Grand parade, Langney Priory, The Old Parsonage and Church of All Souls. MortimerCat 13:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

General Comments

I have seen lots of other articles relating to Eastbourne. Beachy Head,Eastbourne railway station,Hampden Park, East Sussex,Eastbourne Borough F.C.,Langney Sports Club,Langney,Eastbourne Buses. Should we be removing information from the Eastbourne article that is duplicated in these sub articles? MortimerCat 11:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements has just updated its guidelines. Shall we incorporate these? MortimerCat 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I used an automated Peer review script to analyse the current article, the results are here. /Peer Review 20070120 This checks the page against Wikipedias recommended styles. Something to bear in mind when editing. MortimerCat 17:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Something has happened to the references. The numbers are not running consecutively at the start of the article. Mikeo1938 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference sources are allocated a number which is displayed as the superscript. For most articles these will stay in numeric order. However, there is nothing to stop a reference source being used again throughout the document. (This is why we NAME them). In our case paragraphs 1 and 3 quotes reference no.1, while paragraph 2 quotes reference no.2. This is perfectly acceptable. MortimerCat 13:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary links (?) Does anyone think the article is overloaded with links to quite ordinary words such as ‘beach’, ‘village’, ‘hotel’ and so on? Mikeo1938 11:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point. I have not been able to find an answer in Wikipedias policies MortimerCat 13:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK: I see no point in having links for such ordinary words and propose they be removed. Their presence clutters the page. Mikeo1938 12:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I found the guidelines Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context MortimerCat 14:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again: Well, I'll go through and remove links to such simple words. Mikeo1938 17:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Work so far

You may have noticed, I have crossed out all comments relating to work already completed. Hopefully, this makes it easier to see what items still need to be addressed. MortimerCat 19:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is getting long. Do you think we should move this current collaboration section to its own subpage, or just archive the rest of the page? MortimerCat 12:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC) I just know that the page is getting too long and would prefer it to be shorter, but with the older parts easily accessible. Mikeo1938 12:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You'll see that my 2nd ref to the Belle Tout (about it having been moved) comes out as a "press release". It was not really this but just a piece which appeared in that newspaper on the date I give. How should this citation be laid out? I could not find a template for newspaper reports. Mikeo1938 20:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The template for news seems to include newspapers. However, the title is compulsory, so I called it "Belle Tout moved". If you know the proper headline, could you change it please. MortimerCat 02:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Major Clanger!: I've managed to erase everything after "Education". Sorry about this. Guess it can be restored from the history, but I'd prefer to leave it to MortimerCat or one of the others with more experience. Mikeo1938 17:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks, MortimerCat for putting that right. Mikeo1938 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bandstand Picture.

Although the unused bandstand is a better quality photograph, the bandstand in use picture is showing the purpose of the bandstand. Bearing in mind this is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery, I think the bandstand in use is providing the reader with more information. MortimerCat 01:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• 
  Unused bandstand
• 
  Bandstand in use.

Talk:Eastbourne/collaboration

Talk:Eastbourne/collaboration