Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008.

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex
I've based this list off List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Hertfordshire, a list which and I collaborated on a few months back. All the towns/villages where the SSSIs are located in are linked too if the article exists, and all the rest are unlinked. Individual articles about each SSSI don't exist, as to be honest, I don't believe they'd meet the notability guideline. I'm willing to address any issues. Thanks, Qst (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been pretty much established that all SSSIs in discussions previously that do meet the notability criterion. Even the least notable ones will be referred to in multiple published sources, which is the basic test we ask subjects to meet. SP-KP (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better to link to all the sites, regardless of whether they exist or not.
 * Consensus was made in this FLC that links which would be red should be left un-linked. Qst (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Although that was the consensus there, consensus for featured lists in general is that a substantial majority of the lsited items should be bluelinked, and the remainder redlinked. For this reason, I'm going to have to Oppose, reluctantly. (see below) SP-KP (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, link them then. There's no need to oppose.  Al Tally  talk  00:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If there was something to link to, I agree that this would solve the problem. The difficulty is that there isn't - and even the currently bluelinked ones are usually linked to nearby towns etc. The number of items on the list which have articles is very small and as this is a FL criterion, then, I'm sorry, but that is a good reason to oppose. SP-KP (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No its not, you're opposing because probably NN town articles don't exist. So you're asking me to chuck the notability guideline out the window and create them? The only info I could probably get is "xx is a town in East Sussex, England." I ask that you reconsider your oppose. Qst (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm asking you to create SSSI stubs for a good majority of the articles listed. To quote FLC criteria, a featured list "has a minimal proportion of red links" - this, to my knowledge, has always been interpreted as meaning that the non-existence of articles for members of the list is a problem - and not one to be fixed simply by unlinking or disguising the links. Do you have any examples of existing FLs where the article subject's notability rests on its inclusion in the list but where a significant proportion of the entries do not have articles? SP-KP (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * SP-KP, how would you feel if I created some of the articles on SSSIs, and kept some of the links to towns? Qst (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd apply the same test - how close to being the "perfect" featured list of East Sussex SSSIs are we? i.e. a list of East Sussex SSSIs for which every entry has a bluelink leading to an article on the SSSI, as is that case for Avon, Somerset etc. Actually, even those are a long way from "perfect" as most of the articles are still stubs, but anyway ... In FLC discussions elsewhere, I've seen two-thirds quoted as the minimum proportion needed for a successful candidate. The actual phrasing in the criterion is "minimal proportion of redlinks" which is open to interpretation. SP-KP (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've used the PDF files to find the nearest borough/district to the SSSI, and now, rather than leaving the link red, I have linked to the nearest borough/city. I'll finish up the last few tomorrow morning. Qst (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All links are now blue. Qst (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't there be a bold part in the lead?
 * Nope, adding a bold part in the lead would mean linking Site of Special Scientific Interest, and linking in the emboldened part of the lead should not occur, per MoS (I'll find the link if necessary.) Qst (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't override the MoS guideline that all articles should have their title bolded in the lead - the correct thing to do here is to mention SSSIs somewhere after the bolded text, and wikilink it there. SP-KP (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with you here SP-KP, that this is what is normally done. However there is discussion about how sensible this is for lists, not sure where consensus lies.Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * LEAD, on the contrary. Qst (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for drawing my attention to that. Last time I looked into this, that wasn't the guideline - I accept I'm out of date on this point. SP-KP (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "In terms of size, the region is bordered by Kent to the north, and Surrey to the south." How is that anything to do with size?
 * Fixed. Qst (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "East Sussex itself, however, has an estimated population of 757,600..." Why the however?
 * Fixed. Qst (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe something can be "As of 2009". Anything could happen tomorrow, we aren't a crystal ball.  Al Tally  talk  18:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's as maybe, but it means up until this date. If an event were to occur which was relevant to the list, I'd update it. Qst (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Qst (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - overall the list looks good, however I have a few suggestions: One other comment - can we split the list up into (arbitrary) alphabetic sections, as per the other SSSI lists? SP-KP (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead is on the short side, and I would prefer to see it expanded. Natural England have good documents about an areas general wildlife here. These are the ones specific to east sussex:, ,.
 * I think the lead is sufficient as it is, and I can find nothing to expand it any further. I had intended for it to be bigger, but I feel its comprehensive as it is. Qst (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Template:Reflist, which is used, makes the references a small font, which is fine. However reference 5 then has small tags for each PDF. This means the PDF titles are very small. They are just ok on my laptop screen but I have seen them on other screens where they are indecipherable.
 * Swapped to, done. Qst (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This will probably be picked up by others, but I would like to see a few more of the non-links become blue. (I will try to help out with this as I have created a number in my time!)
 * I'll see what I can do over the course of today. Qst (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the other SSSI lists have a note saying if a particular site extends into another county, see this edit for details . The natural england website will tell you if this is the case. Here is one for this list.
 * I agree with Al tally that as of 2008 is more appropriate than 2009.
 * Okay, done. Qst (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally, and I apologise that this is rather petty, but I would prefer to see the list of PDFs in three columns rather than 4, as the 4th only has four in it and looks a bit odd!!! (it would also fit with other SSSI lists, not that that is that important!) - Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've split them up into four columns, each with 16 listed in each. This way, each column has the same amount in. Done. Qst (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because people agreed in the Hertfordshire FLC that all of them should just be in one big table. Qst (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just one (restricted-audience) FLC discussion though. The majority of the SSSI FLCs do use this convention, and it wasn't invented for those but taken from other example lists. There are several reasons why this has been done for long lists such as this, to do with editability, readability. Are there some reasons why it should not be used here? SP-KP (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Qst (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, nice work.  weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  10:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as someone who has been interested in writing these lists for a while now, I believe this meets the FL criteria and is of a standard similar to the other SSSI lists. Daniel (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't come close to exemplifying "our very best work", which is ably done by the Avon and Cleveland lists for example. Those lists, linking together SSSI articles, are the "best" you have to match. Please create the relevant short articles (if they are of scientific interest, they'll be notable and will be documented by English Nature amongst others). Oh, and don't talk about "Consensus was made" in some other list when in fact it was just one reviewer giving in after being pushed. Colin°Talk 17:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Who do you think you are telling me what to do, pal. And by the way, the individual SSSI articles are not notable, so why would I create them. I'd appreciate some input from you on this. Qst (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, have you ever heard of arrogance? I'd say the Cleveland list which you nominated is far from perfect. Qst (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a point, Colin didn't nominate that. :) Rudget   (Help?) 19:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad, he didn't. :) Qst (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And can you please tell me what your problem is with the SSSIs being linked to the town they're in? I fail to see. Qst (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Less of the "pal", please. This isn't a pub and we aren't squaring up for a fight. You're in the minority in thinking SSSIs aren't notable. The word "Special" and "Interest" in the title is sort of a hint don't you think? Stop trying to bully reviewers. I'm entitled to my opinion and nothing you have said makes me want to change it. And to add to the link issue, there should be photos. These are beautiful parts of our country. Colin°Talk 21:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bully reviewers? Well, everyone is free to their views I suppose. And no, The Rambling Man brought up in the Herts FLC that a map would be appropriate, and it is, and they're not beatiful parts of the country, just nature reserves with a few trees. Okay, I'll start creating the articles soon, but I highly doubt you will be willing to help, am I right? Qst (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Nature reserves with a few trees". "not beautiful". Have you even looked at the entries you are linking? I suppose not when Castle Hill is just a DAB page. It looks like this, which I found after about 10s on Google Images. Or Arlington Reservoir? Or Romney Marsh? Or Newhaven cliffs? You've got to be passionate about the subject to write featured content. If you were, you'd be happy to write about it instead of moaning about reviewers not helping. Colin°Talk 22:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't say I look through everyone in the list, but of course I have an interest in SSSIs. If I wanted an essay in an attempt to change my views, I'd know you to be the person. =) Qst (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue of whether SSSIs are notable is clearly going to be important for this, and many subsequent, featured list candidates. I would like to point people to Whitton Bridge Pasture which is a good article about a single SSSI. As SSSIs go this is among the least important, notable or interesting; it is essentially a small field. However, I believe (and I should seeing as a wrote it) that it is notable and is a suitable subject for a wikipedia article. Suicidalhamster (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll get to work creating some tomorrow (probably) so at least half of the article has links to them in. Thanks, Qst (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's one! :) Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Colin, would you be satisfied if I create half of the SSSI articles for this list? I'm sure you can appreciate the tediousness of one person creating all these articles? Qst (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've created 10+ SSSI articles? Is this enough for your to offer your support and leave the others linked to the appropriate town/district? I can create more if you like. Qst (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see two-thirds of them done (if that's the solution we're going with now) before withdrawing my oppose (see below). The rest should either be redlinked, or wikilinked to an article with at least a mention of the site. SP-KP (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm heading off on Wikibreak in a few days, so there maybe a delay. Qst (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have re-created the first table in my sandbox with the addition of a sortable function. I'd like you to use it for all SSSI tables. First, though, tell me what's wrong with it.-- Crzycheetah 21:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I dislike it, as I think it makes the columns look weird. It looks as if there is too many, and I just don't find it seems as comprehensive as the current layout. This may seem like bad reasoning, but its hard to put in to words why I dislike it. I'm open to discussion. Qst (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Qst in that I prefer the current layout. Daniel (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't add any columns; even though it may seem that there are too many of them, most of them are short. Sorting by hectares is very useful in such long lists as this one.-- Crzycheetah 23:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I also would like to know why you don't use "!" for the headings and bold the titles manually instead.-- Crzycheetah 23:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorting by area and by year are both useful facilities. The two formats don't look radically different. I'd turn off sorting for the map column, though. Colin°Talk 06:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the current format is more aesthetically pleasing, however having sortable columns is such a useful feature it probably over-rides my aesthetic preferences :) Given lack of clear consensus on this issue, the question of sortable columns should maybe be decided on a list-to-list basis, rather than enforcing the decision of this FLC on all lists. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 23:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Every SSSI has a source in the References section. The use of in-line citations is only a technique, not a requirement. Colin°Talk 06:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally, I'd support any call for full inline citations, but in this case the referencing method achieves the intended result; there is nothing in relation to auditability that inline citations would add, they'd just be a presentational change. Not a barried to FL in my view, therefore. SP-KP (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the FLC directors, whom I know, has agreed to close this early at my request. I shall re-submit the nomination when everything is done, and 2/3 of the SSSI articles are created. Thanks, :) Qst (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Following Qst's hard work on the issues I raised above, I'm very happy to withdraw my oppose vote and switch to one of Support. SP-KP (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And Sunderland06's. Could you possibly strike your vote so it makes it clearer when this comes to be closed? Cheers. Qst (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just under 60% of the SSSIs now have articles and correct links. Good, well done. But 24 still direct the reader to some nearby town or even a whole council district. This doesn't help Wikipedia or the reader. There's no obligation on the writers of those town articles to develop or even keep any mention of nearby SSSIs. Many of the links listed below make no reference to the SSSI, so the reader does not gain any new information by following the link. In addition, the use of piped links rather than redirects means that this list will not automatically gain when an SSSI is written and it is not obvious which require writing. In the interests of keeping links simple and honest, I suggest the following entries be changed to redlinks. I hope this will have the desired effect of encouraging the writing of the rest of them. These small articles can have info boxes and categories in a way that the current town/district linked-articles can never.
 * There doesn't seem to be any rationale to why some of the following aren't yet SSSI articles -- just that nobody has written them yet. They're not any less notable than the ones that have been created. Could you do Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay, as is the big one and should have plenty to write about. If you agree to create the redlinks, we'll have about 1/3 redlinks, and I'd be prepared to support that. Colin°Talk 17:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If I create another 4, 2/3 will now exist. Qst (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Blackhorse Quarry
 * Brede Pit And Cutting
 * Burgh Hill Farm Meadow
 * Buxted Park
 * Castle Hill
 * Combe Haven
 * Dallington Forest
 * Darwell Wood
 * Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay
 * Eridge Green
 * Eridge Park
 * Fore Wood
 * Firle Escarpment
 * Hastings Cliffs To Pett Beach
 * Heathfield Park
 * Herstmonceux Park
 * Lullington Heath
 * Marline Valley Woods
 * Offham Marshes
 * Seaford To Beachy Head
 * Waldron Cutting
 * Willingdon Down
 * Wilmington Downs
 * Winchelsea Cutting

I agree with Colin, redlinks for these would be more helpful. SP-KP (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Matthewedwards (talk· contribs· count· email) 07:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Weak Support. Comments addressed, but some redirects still need addressing. Matthewedwards (talk· contribs· count· email) 01:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please wikilink hectares and acres in the table headers. Matthewedwards (talk· contribs· count· email) 07:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done this for the first table header, probably not worth doing it for all the headers? Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so.
 * I'd like to see the entries sortable too, but I prefer the look of the headers in the article to the way Crzy displayed them. Not sure why...
 * I've changed my mind on this one since no other Featured SSSI list does it.

Comments

Gary King ( talk ) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the NOTOC. Yes, the PDF links are necessary, as they are essentially the references. Qst (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've redlinked to the links provided above, yet have created about half a dozen or so more, and I'll work on expanding the lead further tomorrow. Qst (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's my lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * I'd consider linking or explaining anticline (I don't know what it is and I'm dead smart).
 * Why is Asham Quarry's acreage N/A?
 * I recommend numbers to be right aligned with consistent decimal places.
 * Not sure about spaces between the initial letters and the en-dash in the section headings.
 * In fact, I'm not sure why the table is split at all?
 * Ref 2 - " (August 22,2007)." looks a little odd to me, and not linked - is the cite formatted correctly?
 * Okay, that's everything done. The reason the table is split is because it was requested I do this above, but on the SSSI list for Hertfordshire, I was told not to split the table up, so you can see how its jumping around here... Qst (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.