Jump to content

Talk:Burgess Hill

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

History section

[edit]

The history is too long. Its not like Burgess Hill is a historic town. From the 1800s section to the present day shoud be reduced in my opinion. And the future section doesn't fit into History either and shame of Sussex travesty of the Northern Arc is happening now.

To Do

[edit]
  • More citing of sources.
  • A section on the climate and weather conditions in the town.
  • A demography section.
  • More information on the town's history between 1900 and 1950; the town's place during the war; evacuation, etc.
  • More information in the landmarks section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.16.243 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work done on Governance and Business sections. 80.229.16.243 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Renaming of Section

[edit]

I'd like to make the suggestion that the Landmarks section should be renamed Historical Buildings, to more accurately represent the information that's there. I also suggest a removal of a landmarks section, as those things which would previously have been described as landmarks are now given more detailed description elsewhere on the page.

I was also wondering what others thought of the idea for it to be moved to the bottom of the History section, perhaps?

Any comments will be greatly welcomed. Thanks.

80.229.16.243 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes Made

[edit]

I’ve made some changes:

  • the opening sentence gives the complete detail of Burgess Hill’s governmental situation (parish/district/county) which is what I am attempting to do with all the civil parishes in Wsx, where I try to differentiate between town or village and parish.
  • Roman road - I see from here that there is such evidence: don’t know what it is precisely
  • I’m not sure what was meant in this context by “interregnum” (sp)? I’ve changed it to “this time”.
  • “Sudden interest”? Brighton took a while longer than that to become an influence on the area I would have thought
  • I’m also not sure where the comment about Burgess Hill being a “request stop” comes from. I have rejigged the section as “Communications” and added some further details.

Peter Shearan 12:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that some Roman material was found during the major rebuilding work of the town centre in the 1970s.- sorry havent got a source right now. There is a plaque highlighting the position of the roman road halfway along Queen Elizabeth Avenue near the junction with The Brow.

Oakmeeds Merge

[edit]

I don't really see how Oakmeeds Community College has any independent notability and think that it should be merged into the Burgess Hill article. JASpencer 18:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By that note, you should write a sub-section on every school in the town (and after that start on all the other schools, colleges, hospitals etc. by town). It should stay separate, as otherwise, it will only end up being split later. --Owain.davies 19:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the previous entry, in as much as this article should stay seperate, as should Burgess Hill School for Girls, Central Sussex College, etc. With a little more work, I think the Oakmeeds article could be developed into quite an informative page. On another point, I disagree that the articles should be merged, purely on the basis that the B. Hill article is quite substantial and looking rather crowded already, due to the lack of images. 80.229.16.243 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With no support, i have removed the tag. Owain.davies 10:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambulance Service

[edit]

In the information box about the town in the top right hand corner of the Burgess Hill page, Burgess Hill is listed under the South Central ambulance service area. However, if you go onto the South East Coast ambulance service wikipedia page, it lists Burgess Hill as being in its (SE Coast's) catchment area. I remember that that info box used to say that Burgess Hill was indeed in the SE Coast area.

I was just wondering if anyone could clarify this for me, and make the appropriate correction(s)?

I shall be posting this on all three relevant pages.

Thanks 80.229.16.243 20:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right, this whole are is covered by South East Coast - i've had this problem before with the Isle of Wight, and i can't remember how to fix it (because its a call reference) - i'll ses if i can get in touch with the person who fixed it for me there. Owain.davies 06:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now left a message at Template talk:Infobox UK place who look after this automatic system to ask them. Owain.davies 06:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never did get round to posting it again... well, I didn't need to, did I? That's great news - thanks! 80.229.16.243 10:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment

[edit]

I have reassessed the article as B class. After a few more inline citations and a demographics section are added, I think it will be ready for GA nomination. Epbr123 01:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tone Queries

[edit]

There are two new tags at the top of the page. One of these I understand, and agree with - this is the one which refers to citing sources, and suchlike. However, I must query the tag which refers to the tone of the article. Could anyone (specifically the person who added the tags) clarify on this? Eg. whether it is any particular section, or simply suggesting different ways in which areas of the article are rewritten?

That would be greatly appreciated,

Thanks! 80.229.16.243 18:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

[edit]

This article has changed out of all recognition since I last looked. Awesome! I've seen a few areas for further improvement, so I'll spend some time working on it in the next few weeks. GA-status is certainly within reach. Hassocks5489 12:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly Section

[edit]

As Burgess Hill didn't make it on to the final board, I would think it isn't a particularly relevant section. However, I don't know what people would feel as to writing a section about the fact it didn't get onto the board - because of all the voting issues and such?

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated,

Thanks.

Curtis3250692 17:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1900 to present day

[edit]

Being the fastest growing town and nearly doubling the population isn't enlarging "gradually". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wildfire Expansion Of Burgess Hill

[edit]

How about a little allusion to or even mention of all the pocket-lining, back-hander-taking philistines and aesthetic derelicts who have and continue to make themselves rich by ruining the place. How about a little mention of the general air of terminal apathetic gormlessness of the population who should have done something to stop it. So how long before Ditchling Common becomes another housing estate? About twenty years thanks to the corrupt bastards running the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.156.164 (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Famous Residents

[edit]

I also know that Valentine Dyall and Michael York (grew up there) were long-term residents of Burgess Hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.156.164 (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got time to add the text and format the links tonight, but this confirms Valentine Dyall, and this and various clones confirm Michael York. '"Raised in Burgess Hill, a suburb of London and Brighton" ... you gotta laugh! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Sites information

[edit]

Wanted to add the information page for another of the Churches (Mid-Sussex Christian Centre) as many of the other Churches have their pages up and we do not.

Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by True Bassist (talk • contribs) 00:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Burgess Hill. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Burgess Hill. 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) 17:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burgess Hill. 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) 15:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burgess_Hill&oldid=1218704899"