Talk:Isle of Sheppey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kent Portal
This article is within the scope of the Kent WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the county of Kent in South East England.
If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance for Kent-related articles.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

WikiProject Kent tasks:

Contents

[edit] sheppeyscum.com

[from my talk]

Hello, can you please clarify why a site which states "Some aspects of this site may offend the weak minded, especially the weak minded amongst the Sheppey natives, which is just about all of them. If you are squeamish or easily upset then we suggest you choose not to enter this site. You should probably go fuck yourself instead." is useful info on the island? Anárion 12:50, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because it's by far the best-known site on Sheppey. Also #1 hit on Google. Leaving it out of the article would be ridiculous. - David Gerard 13:25, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
By that logic the Dubya article should link to http://www.bushorchimp.com/ . The links, if kept in, should be marked as anti-Sheppey and generally hostile. Anárion 13:51, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I didn't realise bushorchimp was quite so popular ;-) Hopefully the present marking is OK - David Gerard 13:58, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we need a link to a site that looks like it's been written by a disgruntled teenager whose mummy won't let him use the car to go somewhere exciting. DJ Clayworth 15:43, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Said site is just about the only fame Sheppey has. One could pretend otherwise, but one would nevertheless just be pretending - David Gerard 15:50, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There are two other sites on the page, and they will do fine. Also worth remembering that there is only one thing worse than no information, and that is wrong information. DJ Clayworth 17:17, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
May as well stick my oar in. I've once again removed the "Sheppeyscum" link. The only reason for an article to have an external link is if it is a home site or contains valuable information that cannot be easily included in the article itself. This site does not meet those criteria and, besides, is poorly written and offensive. If it was about a country, instead of a district, it would be considered racist. Deb 21:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's not informative as such, but it's meant to be humourous (hey, humour is a matter of individual taste), not informative anyway. Links to humourous sites, parodies etc. are allowed (e.g. the CamperStrike game on the Counter-Strike article), why not Sheppeyscum? Just keep it and put a 'warning, offensive' label on it. 16:52, 3 January 2006 - VJ Emsi

[edit] Sheppey Link site

Is that site really 'anti-Sheppey'? It looks more anti-the council, if anything - David Gerard 14:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


quote; Said site is just about the only fame Sheppey has. One could pretend otherwise, but one would nevertheless just be pretending - David Gerard 15:50, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Given this is so why do we need an article of Sheppy at all?, Just Delete the whole page confidant in the knowledge that Sheppey has no other fame. If not then no justification for the link can be made. Remove the link.. Faedra 08:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Headline text

how ignorant can so many people be?or is it a case of "monkey see monkey do",which is the exact reason why sheppey got its,Redneck status,....If there is just ONE true islander out there who truthfully believes that sheppey should be shut down,then you are a disgrace to your roots,family,and humanity.Your,home islanders,is a wealth of history,and local heros and celebrities,but in all honesty celebrities are not at all important,Sheppey has it own merits,it is not the island that makes this place bad,it is the people,youre all making yourselves look idiots(not that hard judging by the state of sheerness high street at the weekend).If you hate it sooo much. . .why you still here?? There is always Gravesend,or Quinton,who would gladly welcome your ignorance with open arms!! Do yourselves,and us true islanders a huge favour,go away,shuu,shove off,make like a muppet and flee.You really really should have paid more attention in that huge building you were meant to go to 5 days a week called "school",then you could take those hoodies off and walk with your head heald high,be seen,and be proud to be an islander,because if you are actually reading this,you have a head srart on the quinton and gravesend lot!!.BE PROUD TO BE AN ISLANDER,IT COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MUCH MUCH WORSE,

[edit] Incorrect map display

Maybe it's my computer, but I don't see any of Kent on that map as it displays in this article. Nurg 02:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Local Radio

This section is far from encyclopedic: it looks more like a message from involved individuals to the wider world, and thus comes perilously close to being promotional. I'd rather leave those who have an interest in it to try to bring it into line rather than wield an editorial axe myself: I'd be very tempted to make swingeing cuts to it... Kevin McE 00:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

More than 2 months later, and it looks no better. Do those who have an interest in this part of the article want to bring it more into line with Wiki standards? Kevin McE 19:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Still "enthusiastcruft" at best: are any of these stations actually broadcasting? Is there a certain schedule for when they will? If not, I move that this is speculation, and the whole section should be deleted. Kevin McE 10:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Go on Kevin - delete this lot. JonnyH 21:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
More than a year after suggesting that those interested in this section tidy it up, with no defence of its value to the article having appeared here, I've radically edited it. Kevin McE 16:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foot Tunnel

I find this really hard to believe, so I'd be very interested to see some evidence of the existence of this tunnel posted. JonnyH 10:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have it on the authority of senior official at Sheerness docks, although I have not been able to find an internet reference (but hey! Who is going to write a web page about a tunnel that no-one has been able to use for several decades?)Kevin McE 23:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah but ... That's just one man's word. Can he refer to evidence of any sort: a document, a bricked-up entrance on either side? This sounds seriously anecdotal, or else like a joke. The construction of such a feature beneath the mouth of the River Medway would have been a SERIOUS undertaking. I know that in wartime all sorts of serious things were done, but there must be some evidence for something like this. JonnyH 15:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds Napoleonic or even Palmerston, see other article on forts around the Medway for either time frame. i do have book on the subject back at home which I'll dig up sometime but even that IIRC says there were rumours of tunnels linking the forts around the Medway towns, and IIRC didn't go into much depth about Sheppy or the hoo peninsular Pickle 21:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
What does 'IIRC' mean? And I still don't believe any of this. JonnyH 14:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll answer my own question. Apparently it's 'If I Recall Correctly'. Hmmm.
I'm going to remove this foot tunnel thing if we don't get any verification soon. JonnyH 21:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's just keep the tunnel under wraps until we have some evidence. It's best to keep rumour at bay. JonnyH 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ermmm: it was removed 4 days ago. Kevin McE 17:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How high is the Sheppey Crossing?

Contradicting articles - 35m vs 20m for the height of Sheppey Crossing

This article says:

"The Sheppey crossing ... rises to a height of 20 m above The Swale"

Sheppey Crossing article says:

"The Sheppey Crossing ... crosses The Swale at a height of 35m"

One is nearly double the other.

Both are uncited anyone know which is correct and/or cite source. Carlwev (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

BBC reference says 35m. Highways agency reference says 29m. I'm inclined to favour the latter as being a more 'primary' source. Murray Langton (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)