Jump to content

Talk:Seaford, East Sussex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Transport Section Added

[edit]

I've added a transport section if anyone can add anything to this section please do! Silverstorm20 (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

I have just replaced the main image. The new one appears to have been taken just after grading work had been undertaken on the beach. You can see bulldozer tracks in the foreground. Izzy

population

[edit]

Population 22,000? That's a little lower than the other figures I've heard. the one I most often hear is around the region of 35,000.

Go to the East Sussex County Council website, Town and Parish populations [ESCC]. That gives a total 2006 population for Seaford of 23,350 (males 10,953 and females 12,397). I guess that the preponderance of females indicates the number of retired people living in the town. Women generally live longer than men. Izzy

"wrecking" activities by local residents

[edit]

Richard. There are now two references to the nefarious activities of Seaford residents in the 1400s and 1500s. The practice of luring sailing ships aground by placing false harbour lights on the beach and cliffs has been widely commented on in local histories. There is also some reference to the practice at the Martello Tower Museum. I suspect that the story is exaggerated, but something of the sort must have happened. Anyway, it is a nice little story. Izzy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Izzy –
Unfortunately all that these references demonstrate is that the story about wrecking at Seaford is widely repeated in modern times. However, they don't tell us anything about what actually happened at the time – they are hearsay, and they are centuries later. What we need is a reliable source from the time or soon after, or at least a published, reliable history which describes a primary source (which would have to be a court case, an eye-witness statement or similar). Even contemporary sources need to be shown not to be hearsay or predjudiced – what we are doing is making a verifiable encyclopedia, not gossiping... Where do the modern sources get it from? If it was a reliable history, fine, but for all we know it was Joe Grundy winding up the tourists in the pub. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources.) Regards, --Richard New Forest (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard. I have now reported the wrecking as a "local legend". There must be some grain of truth in the story - even if nothing more than that. Izzy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]

"Seaford is also home to a well known independent school (Newlands Prepatory and Manor) which includes a widely recognised specialist unit for pupils with specific learning difficulties.[1]" does not sound neutral and is bordering on advertising.Silverstorm20 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Newlands School is well known and does contain a special needs unit. The only possible lack of neutrality may lie in the term "widely recognised". So, I have taken that term out. Does that seem OK? Izzy (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine Izzy :) it just sounded promotional from the way i read it this morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverstorm20 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

view from Seaford Head image

[edit]

Does anyone mind if I replace the present image with the following one taken from Geograph? :

This one seems to say a little more. Izzy (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit fuzzy, and the distance is a bit hazy, but the content is much better, so yes, I think it illustrates the article better. I've probably got some from a similar position (our old house is just off to the right somewhere...), but they'll be scans of slides, so the quality will be too poor. Get up there Izzy on a clear day and take a better one... --Richard New Forest (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Richard. The above image looks as if it was taken on a summer afternoon by which time a haze had got up. James' image looks as if it was taken early in the morning when visibility was still clear. I will replace the image in the article, but James should feel free to put his image back if he so wishes. I might try going down there early one day to take a picture of my own. Izzy (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Izzy I agree the new image is better, for landscape shots you can't beat early morning shots the haze is always a nightmare at this time of year. The photo I took below was taken in january for the cuckmere haven article. The winter months are the best time to take stunning landscape photos with complete clarity.
I'll try and get up on the head sometime next week to re-create the shot hopefully with a bit more clarity lol :D Silverstorm20 (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James. A nice picture of Cuckmere Haven, but perhaps the emphasis is more on artistic impression than on content?. I wouldn't know where it was taken unless I was told. Good luck with your planned Seaford Head shot - it is a classic south coast view and full justice should be done to it. Izzy (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was right – I did have a slide taken from almost exactly the same spot, in summer 1987. Interestingly it shows the new beach almost complete (and before it was washed out), and the cliffs and cliff paths a little further out than in the more recent photo.
My photo is a much clearer day, but it's grainy and dusty, and because I developed it myself it's got a blue cast – so I was also right that it's not much use... Richard New Forest (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard. Great picture and it is a pity about the bluish tinge. It might be possible to correct that digitally. Over 20 years, the main pathway does seem to have moved about 50 metres away from the cliff edge - suggesting that people nowadays do not have the nerve they did in 1987. Izzy (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did correct for the blue a good bit when I scanned it, and I'm not sure much more colour can be recovered from it.
I don't think nerve is what you'd need to follow the old path – it's wings! The cliff itself has moved inland – though actually not quite as much as I thought it would have. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Seaford?

[edit]

There is no other place called Seaford in the United Kingdom and I Imagine that the Seaford's in the U.S.A. and Australia are named after this. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  07:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No move. It may be the origin of the other names (although for all we know it's not), but either way the others are "real" places too. I see nothing wrong with the present arrangement, which is fair to each. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • 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, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  18:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Seaford, 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) 17:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Seaford & District" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Seaford & District. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seaford,_East_Sussex&oldid=1212255542"