Talk:Whitehawk

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Brighton High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles UK geography This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I've added a POV check tag to the page because it's written with a focus on all the bad things of Whitehawk, and at times it lapses into unencyclopedicness, including the hyperbole ("worlds apart") which is POV in itself. I don't have a personal interest and have just heard of this place, but saw the article while reverting vandalism to it and thought it'd be OK to point this out. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree actually. I live in Brighton and although Whitehawk has a bad reputation, I agree this article is highly partisan. --Ben Martin (Talk) 15:48, 05 March 2006 (GMT)

Whitehwawk isn't that bad at all anymore.(Unsigned comment by 217.36.212.194)

I agree as well - the article is a pretty bad case of POV. I hope someone with a bit more knowledge could clean it up. (Although I actually live not too far from Whitehawk, I know too little about it to do something myself about the article.) --A bit iffy 07:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've given this article a major rewrite. I've chopped most of it out. I thought if we go back to the start, we might might be able to put together a more balanced article. But I thought I'd leave the POV check in case anyone else wants to check what I've done first. --Seaweed 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody has suggested the POV tag should stay, I've removed it. --Seaweed 16:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there still a secondary school in Whitehawk? I had a feeling CoMArt had closed. --A bit iffy 07:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right on that one! I remember when it closed as we got some students come to my school (Cardinal Newman) as part of the closure --BenjMartin

The East Brighton College of Media Arts closed in August 2005. I've edited the article accordingly. --Seaweed 22:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded this article substantially and added some headings. I've added information about primary schools and the Whitehawk Inn training centre as well as a section on churches. I've also added a bit about the White Hawk hill carving. The section on Stanley Deason/Marina High/COMART has been expanded with dates added. I've also added a load of external links.

Being fairly new to this I'm not sure if it's enough to "de-stub" the article but feel it probably is. Fork me 16:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, so I've removed the stub tag. --Seaweed 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fork me. Good to see someone editing some Brighton related articles. I think maybe some of the external links you've added might not be appropriate for Wikipedia. You might want to read the External links style guide for more information. For example I don't think the link to Whitehawk Primary School should be added. The guidance that rings in my ears is that "Wikipedia is not a web directory". But anyway, maybe you disagree. --Seaweed 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good to get some feedback so quickly. I wasn't sure about which links to include or not include myself. I looked at the links sections for other local areas before deciding. The Primary school site may be a case in point as it doesn't add much about the area (or even say much about the school itself). I'm happy for it to be removed it that is a general concensus. Fork me 17:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a decent history now to try and better reflect how Whitehawk has developed. I'm happier with the article now, although it's difficult to show the character of the area without violating the POV policy. Whitehawk has a lot of positive things going on but also has more than its fair share of problems. Fork me 08:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Whitehawk. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20031219104025/http://www.media-arts.brighton-hove.sch.uk:80/contact.htm to http://www.media-arts.brighton-hove.sch.uk/contact.htm

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]