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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource about Brighton and Hove. If you would like to participate, please visit the project pageBrightonWikipedia:WikiProject BrightonTemplate:WikiProject BrightonBrighton articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mills 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.MillsWikipedia:WikiProject MillsTemplate:WikiProject MillsMills articles
All the sources I've used state that the mill is in Patcham, not Westdene. Any assertation that this is not the case needs a reliable source to back it up. Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, as per the sources I have in relation to Brighton. Pevsner (Buildings of England: Sussex) lists it under Patcham (p459: "Windmill, ¾ mile WSW. A tower mill with its sails."), and the Encyclopaedia of Brighton (a definitive source on Brighton-related info) says much the same. The problem is that although it is in the old parish of Patcham, which covered much of what is now the northern part of Brighton, it is some distance from modern-day Patcham—a name which is now used to refer simply to the old village east of the London Road. The nearest urban area is Westdene, which as the sources say is a modern residential development in the old parish of Patcham. Nevertheless, verifiability is the name of the game, and no sources refer to it as being in Westdene, on the basis that it did not exist when the mill was built. The article, as it stands at the moment (i.e. as reverted by Mjroots), is therefore correct. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)21:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]