Jump to content

Talk:Chichester

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

High School

[edit]

Why are the

removed from Schools? Ben 19:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would re-add them tbh: one suspects that as the user who removed them only started editing today they may not be up on the rules for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- Francs2000 19:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced Ben 17:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwood Festival of Speed / Revival

[edit]

What about Goodwood? its the largest even of its kind in the world.

Corn & Butter Market

[edit]

It would be good if someone would add details about the Corn & Butter Market. The former currently houses a clothes shop. Before that it was a McDonalds and a cinema. The Butter Market currently contains small shops.

I notice that there are no up-to-date details about the present problems with the Butter Market - it might be a good idea to put it in.

Football

[edit]

Have Chichester City United dropped the word United from their name? Their website seems to indicate this so I've made a minor change. Ausseagull (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Markets

[edit]

Would also be a good idea to detail the Farmers' Market and French Market?

MrTAToad 13:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population

[edit]

I've deleted the claim that the population trebles in summer. There's no citation and it's most unlikely that a population of 23,000 becomes 70,000 for a few months. In any case, Chichester can hardly be described as a seaside resort, as was implied. I also deleted the ungrammatical sentence following this claim. Millbanks 23:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby Club

[edit]

I don't understand the wording here. Millbanks 23:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now changed Millbanks 20:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keane

[edit]

today i deleted the claim that keane is from chichester, which was in the music section. there was no reference. as far as i know they are from somewhere in east sussex - that's what the bio on wikipedia states. i deleted the claim that chichester has a "central" place in britain's music scene. i am unhappy about this section altogether. it would be cool if some authentic information about local bands could be added as the stark reference to horsebox is not very convincing. if something is not added to this section then it should be scrapped, n'est-ce pas? Timothymurphy (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need for a rewrite

[edit]

This article fails in almost every respect! The guidelines here on the writing about settlements is hardly touched upon. Its all about the place as a tourist attraction, nothing about the city as a place in which to live and work. In particular:

  • the intro should summarise the article's contents - this one introduces stuff not included elsewhere
  • the History section - about an extremely historic place - rushes from the Romans to an undated para about franchises. There must be more! There is - look at this to begin with ... one Google reference talks about 2000 years of history!!
  • Geography: no mention of the site of the city, nor the River Lavant etc
  • sections should include
    • governance: nothing about the City Council; nor West Sussex CC HQ which is located here.
    • demography (what do the people who live there do?)
    • economy: OK tourism's important, but there are other things for people's employment
    • transport - the city is a road hub: served by at least five main roads, which should be described, not just listed. The "Selsey Tram" was actually a light railway: it was simply called a tram locally
    • nothing about other religious buildings - there's more than just the cathedral, which has its own article anyway
    • education: all West Sussex schools are listed elsewhere, but it is normal to include secondary schools and further eduaction colleges (and not listed)
    • culture - all those sub-sections should be in one

Finally I have produced a new article List of people from Chichester. It was a simple, but long-winded, task to trawl the toolbox heading "What links here" to find them. The Category:People from Chichester only gets completed wen someone sees that the subject of the article has a connection with the city, so there are only a handful in it.

I am working on the new article over the next few days. Once completed it will be seen how it gives openings for including things in a logical manner, snd opens the way for a more considered description of Chichester. Peter Shearan (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite completed

[edit]

Now all it needs is more information based on the headings I've included. I'm still working on the History/Geography sections Peter Shearan (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Run over by a train

[edit]

According to the Wikipedia article on William Huskinsson, he is NOT the first person to be run over by a train, but the fifth. This should be clarified in the article. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lordington

[edit]

Found some red links to Lordington which seems to be near Chichester. Worthy of a separate page, or mention here?andycjp (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lordington consists of a manor house used as a care home, a few other houses and the small ancient church of St Peter, Racton with Lordington, beside the B2147 north of Westbourne, but in Stoughton civil parish. Probably best to add it to Stoughton with a redirect I would think.--Charles (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music Section

[edit]

Is the lead needed and why is the ref relevant? See The following section considers the city's music scene: in recent years it has experienced growth in various genres.[1] SovalValtos (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ As an example, Anthony of Antony and the Johnsons originated from the city
Above not formatted correctly. Please help by correcting. SovalValtos (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I was about to remove the last two paras of this subsection as not being in Chichester, and unsourced, but thought I would mention it here first. Tony Holkham (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt West Dean is off topic, so agreed, remove asap. Might pump bottom be within the boundaries of the city. I find these boundaries difficult to check.?SovalValtos (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Pump Bottom Farm is on the A286 near Chichester Marina. Not sure whether that counts as Chichester or Apuldram. Tony Holkham (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A rather promotional listings link from a local paper for pump bottom: http://www.worthingherald.co.uk/what-s-on/entertainments/ringing-the-changes-at-blues-on-the-farm-1-6042604 At least it shows it exists. I will look at maps. Having done so (my map is not current) I am 85% sure Apuldram CP, 10% Donington CP, 5% somewhere else. Enough to delete I say.SovalValtos (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the citation is just about valid. Maybe it should go in Apuldram. Indecisive tonight, but not fussed if it disappears. Tony Holkham (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to be bold. No longer in Chichester. SovalValtos (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Transferred the relevant cited text to Apuldram. SovalValtos (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chichester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chichester/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
* The introduction should be a 2-4 paragraph summary of the article
  • The "Unusual Franchise" section should be part of "History"
  • Do we need two pictures of the same thing?
  • "City" is a rather vague heading for an article about a city. What is the criteria for inclusion in that section? Consider using the suggested sections in the WikiProject link above. The Festivals and Music paragraphs could be the start of a "Culture" section, the architecture could be an "Architecture" section, either top-level or within the culture section. The Cathedral and conservation sections could be included within Architecture, or remain separate if all three sections can be expanded enough.
  • Education: use prose not lists.
  • Transport: as above, also, do not start a new subsection for every sentence -- remove those sub-headers.
  • Unless the transport and areas sections can be expanded it might be best to merge them under a "Geography" header, which could include setting, landscape, geology, ecology and climate.
  • Cite sources using Wikipedia:Footnotes
Comments by Steinsky at 15:16, 6 September 2006.

Last edited at 19:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 11:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chichester. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 21:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Chichester. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 19:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respell Template for Chichester

[edit]

I have reverted what appears to be a good faith edit by an IP address for respell. 1) I am not convinced it is correct. 2) Lack of a description in the edit history may make it hard to identify if it is challenged. I understand there are several variations on how Chichester can be pronounced and I am unconvinced CHICH-i-stər is the most appropriate.

This is far from by best area but I feel a consensus is needed and respell edits need to be properly identified in the history.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about my issues with the syllable breakdown of CHICH-i-stər ... in essence the '-i-' is too short (and needs a bit of an 's' it in) f you is trying to begin with 'CHICH'. So I think one needs splits lenghtwise something like CHICH-est-er, CHICH-es-ter or CHE-CHESS-TAR (Please note I am deficient in use of the International Phonetic Alphabet so I am not going to try to get this exactly right). Myself I might use something like Chit-ist-er or simply Chi for short.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are phonetics exempt from a reliable source??SovalValtos (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I went to school in the city and never heard it pronounced that way. I think a reliable source is needed.Charles (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was borned in Chichester and schooled in the city until 11 and would likely to have got smacked/slippered for using Chit-ist-er which is more derived from my recall of railway announcements. (Probably lightly untrue as i was only slapped once for putting a leg on a chair!). But hands up I'm rubbish with phonetics. However I strongly fell uncomfortable with the respell template I removed. Dorchester is DOR-ches-tər for the respell template on wikipedia so I'd really expect something like CHE-ches-tər (Where the CHE is as used in 'check'). Chester is described CHESS-tər which again seems inconsistent. Overall I would wish to support concensus or a reliable source. Or does this need raising at Wikiproject level? Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about the large block of changes by 86.131.69.208 - where should these have been discussed before their introduction? As for Chichester, I lived there for some years and the first syllable was always the most stressed. The second syllable was often so muted that the word sounded like "Chittister". Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the "Chittister" slang form has become a little into use as it can be said slightly quicker, but that is my opinion and really it's not the slang that was the issue here and maybe ought to be taken up elsewhere, in fact it way possibly inappropriate for me to have mentioned it in the first place. The user also updated the IPA pronunciation on the Dewsbury article - which interesting already referred to the Oxford BBC Guide to Pronunciation ISBN 978-0192807106 which at least is a precedent for a pronunciation being sourced. I understand there is a copy in Horsham library for anyone who is keen.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tesco free bus

[edit]

NemesisAT - just wondering whether, if the service has been discontinued, it needs to be mentioned at all? Unless the service is only temporarily suspended? I don't live in Chichester any more, so am not up to date. Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it doesn't need to be mentioned, I am just adding bus content as and when I find sources. It certainly isn't because I'm trying to complete anything or make any comprehensive transport guides. I don't live in Chichester either, it looks like the service has been discontinued. If you think it is too trivial feel free to remove it. NemesisAT (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stagecoach No. 48 Tues & Weds 6 round trips. [1]. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Spammy author"

[edit]

Davey2010 and Djm-leighpark: would it have been better to bring this discussion here per WP:BRD than via edit summaries? For my part, I see no reason why Philip MacDougall's book is not WP:RS unless established otherwise. If it is being "spammed" across multiple articles, some evidence would be good. It may simply be that the book is a source for multiple articles? I haven't read it, but perhaps you have? Best, Tony Tony Holkham (Talk) 18:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tony Holkham, Please see Special:Contributions/Philip_MacDougall - unfortunately he used IPs too, Unfortunately he was spamming different books across different articles despite being told to stop, Anyway as far as I'm aware his books are fine and as stated somewhere else today if no alternatives can be found then I'd be happy for his books to be included here, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks Davey2010; the book seems genuine as per this write-up, so shall I restore it? Tony Holkham (Talk) 18:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Tony Holkham: I reverted and brought the matter to Davey2010's talk page. From memory there were problems with contributions Special:Contributions/Philip MacDougall with self-evident COI between the username and the content added which were never explained. I believe recent additions of sources/cites Philip MacDougall's work were introduced in I believe in good faith by RoanokeVirginia as follows (per my mk.1 eyeball) from 5 June 2021: [2], [3], & [4] While there may be a case for removal of the entry in "Further reading" there may be a case for removal of other author also to avoid discrimination I find the removal of the cited content as inappropriate. I was passing through Chichester last Wednesday between Wittering and Havant and popped in to an independent Bookshop and noticed one of MacDougall's books on promotion on the counter. I've never met him but indicators are he is a respected local historian of the Chichester area. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I can provide more background information, works I added to the Further Reading section were selected from this list compiled by West Sussex County Council. I selected those that seemed to be generalist books about the city from well-known publishers. I have no connection to MacDougall. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks User:Tony Holkham and RoanokeVirginia, Throughout the years admittedly I've been removing his books from all articles as I have no idea whether these were added by genuine people or by him and I was also under the belief that given his past record that we should no longer host any of his books here at all ... however I can see to a certain point that by removing his work(s) completely I essentially create unsourced content in the end which does us no favours nor our readers who are looking for factually correct information,
I certainly can understand the frustration whereby someone comes along, removes a cite and replaces it with {{cn}} (Being blunt I'd be pissed too!) but I just felt him seeing his name here would give him ammunition to again use this a promotional website but I guess there's pros and cons to all of this.
Anyway I'm happy for the book to be here and I apologise Tony and RoanokeVirginia for the unintentional disruption caused, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no need for apologies. I was a little puzzled, hence my intervention, but all's well. Cheers, Tony Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

River Lavant

[edit]

It isn't really a major significant river like the Stour at Christchurch for instance and it is unclear to me why it sits in the lead section. I can somehow read the article and coming from afar and looking for the River Lavant and somehow being underwhelmed, apart from those who consider it must be related to the canal basin. I still feel its does rather more of following the inner ring road rather than runnning through the city, but I really don't have clue what it does under the Christ Church area. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OS map does not make clear the course of the Lavant beneath the city and I'm not up to date with changes since the 1994 floods. I agree the Lavant is a minor geographical aspect but appears more significant in the lead. However, rather than take it out of the lead, the lead needs expanding to represent the whole article. It's very poor as it is, and is another thing I've been meaning to tackle but never got around to! Oddly, though, Chichester is possibly remarkable for NOT having a decent river flowing through it... Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The River Lavant at least in its current course(s) seems to form two significant examples of River bifurcation, one the east enclosing a area including the Crem. and more or less centred around the south-eastern-most roundabout near but not at the end of Barnfield Drive. The other is to the south-west of the city and generally sees to centred around the Westgate Leisure Centre. Some of these may be artificial to support drainage of nearby sports fields. Strangely does this mean Chichester has two River Islands? that would be a new one on me. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata/Commons mess?

[edit]

I've raised a issue on Wikidata with regards to Wikidata handling at d:Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts/Unresolved/2021#October 2021. I'm BOLDly convinced the thing is an unhelpful mess but its not an expert article of mine. I'll try to edit in the links sometime when it isnt MOTD2 and RL permits, and tomorrow morning for me is crazy RL and that will flow into the week. To look at stuff examine wikidata item from article page, C:Chichester and C:Category Chichester. Note also my edit at [5] as I stumbled into this problem. I've also been taking pictures round chi recently and have attempted to sort some categories. Thankyou. 21:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC) (Signing properly: -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Citation for moving cathedral from Selsey

[edit]

There's one in the Diocese of Chichester article - why not use that? Mdrb55 (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot do. The link is dead. Hopefully, another can be found. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chichester&oldid=1245654263"