Talk:East Wittering

Sussex Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image query[edit]

The image of the cottage is not in the village of east wittering instead in Bracklesham. Moved from article by--Charles (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Agreed. Its been burnt down and rebuilt since 2008! A picture of the main part of East Wittering village might be more appropriate. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship and possible mergers in discussion here[edit]

Talk:East Wittering and Bracklesham#Proposal to rename article to Bracklesham Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote[edit]

There's probably a good case for pointing the Hatnote to Wittering dab page ... but I think that needs tweaking first also to cover Witterings and The Witterings not just Wittering . There a couple of other locals whose opinion I'd likely respect. (I am currently on the road in Chi but not on a good device for editing).Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Witterings redirects to Wittering, West Sussex. I don't see any basis for making either East Wittering nor West Wittering the WP:primary topic. I've removed hatnotes claiming they were primary from each. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried alternative hatnotes that I hope are acceptable.Thnaks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Hatnote: the third of the five basic rules of hatnotes is "Mention other topics and articles only if there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind." And Wikipedia:Hatnote § Examples of improper use: Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. I don't think East Wittering, West Wittering or Wittering, Cambridgeshire are ambiguous, unless the village of 2300 people in Cambridgeshire has an "east side" and a "west side". But since "the presence or absence of hatnotes in articles with disambiguated titles has been a contentious issue, and the guideline doesn't prescribe one way or the other", I suppose they can stay if you really, really think they need to be there. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've probably ended up in Cambridgeshire on google maps and had to deal with too many 52/53 buses not to be biased. it could sometimes help people who ended up and one not realising the other exists. I know I was/am that stupid.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]