Talk:Selsey Bill

Mislabelled photo?

The current photo labelled "Sunset off Selsey Bill point" is a lovely picture, but it seems to have been taken at West Sands (one of the barriers to protect the beach) rather than Selsey Bill. Apart from just generally not being the Bill, some definite evidence:

1) The sun is setting behind the Isle of Wight, which wouldn't be in that position if you were looking at the Bill itself from that angle. 2) Mostly sandy beach, rather than the shingle at the Bill. 3) There's no barrier made of boulders at the Bill. 4) No groyne marker - the Bill has one, with two triangles to mark the point.

Here's a photo of the groyne markers at the Bill point, for illustrative purposes as I don't know if it's suitable or available to use:

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2397917

Or on Google Street View here:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.7228633,-0.7888531,3a,41.7y,124.22h,82.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXt6kLDK0OgEZDu5xsxq5mg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

I don't have a better photo to suggest at the moment though, I'm afraid. I'll see if I can find one later, but I'm not in the area to take one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.32.118 (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The photographer is standing on the Bill looking south west.

Have a look at this picture, it is a wider shot showing the beach with IoW on the horizon, you can clearly see the stones (that are a feature on the page) at the 9 o'clock position on this picture.

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1408426

I walk the dog there every day so I know exactly where it is (although I didn't take the photo).

Wilfridselsey (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It's the "point" bit that's misleading, I think. That's not as far up towards West Sands as I had thought originally (those stones must be fairly new as I don't remember them) but it's at the car park at the end of Hillfield Road, looking away from the point of the Bill itself. As a strict geographical / nautical feature the point of the Bill is a couple of hundred metres east of that, marked with a groyne with a double triangle on top. But OK, I agree that it's "the Bill" in more general terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.32.118 (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

... So to summarize, I suggest changing the caption to "Sunset off Selsey Bill", to satisfy pedants like me!

No the stones have been there at least 20 years - to my certain knowledge. Anyway, I think that you're right about the description and have changed it. Due to coastal erosion the original location of Selsey Bill is mainly under the sea. The 1778 map, with annotation by Cavis-Brown shows Selsea Bill as going from the end of Hillfield Road to Gibbett Field however in 1906 it would have been already mostly under water.The original Yeakel and Gardner map, without annotation, here. Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ha, it's 20+ years since I lived there - perhaps I've just been unobservant when visiting since then. Or maybe it's usually been high tide when I've walked along that stretch, and they've been underwater. Anyway, thanks for changing the caption. I'm happy now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.32.118 (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge_proposal

It seems pointless to have separate articles for the Manhood Peninsula and Selsey Bill which is part of it. I propose they be merged with Selsey Bill becoming a redirect.--Charles (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the two articles merging, but I would have chosen Selsey Bill as the main article because I think Selsey Bill is the more notable area. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

But Selsey Bill is only part of the overall area of the Manhood Peninsula, and I believe the people there are proud of their manhood, as it were.--Charles (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Difficult. Selsey Bill is the best-known geographical identifier for the location; but OTOH it is only the very tip of the Manhood Peninsula. On balance I'd agree with merging in Manhood Peninsula, but give Selsey Bill prominence in the lead paragraph. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Selsey Bill is a well known identifier, so keep the article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Selsey Bill is a well known as a location in the national shipping forecast; there are many examples in Wikipedia for distinct articles for peninsulas and their headlands - no reason why this pair should be different. Saga City (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no proposal to merge Selsey with the Manhood, but Selsey Bill is part of Selsey. The Parish of Selsey contains Church Norton and most of Pagham Harbour. I think that these should al be merged into one Selsey page, however that maybe unwieldy to merge into one Manhood Peninsula page! Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have given this more thought. I think that the Manhood article should contain general information just about the Manhood, eg: origin of name, it's history etc. Then it should list all the towns, villages, hamlets on the Manhood. Like we do with county pages for example. Selsey Bill should be merged with the Selsey page, a paragraph or two could highlight it's importance to shipping. But as the Bill is part of Selsey seems silly to have it as separate as there is obviously going to be a lot of duplication Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you seem to be missing the point. Selsey Bill is a maritime geographical feature which has its own history, co-ordinates and position in history and folklore. Selsey is a town/village with its own history, co-ordinates and position in history and folklore. While administratively they are the same unit of government they are different entities completely. If your argument was followed we'd lose many geographical features from Wikipedia with no advantage to anyone. Please explain how the encycolpaedia would be improved by the merger. Saga City (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Selsey Bill is not a seperate entity to Selsey it is a part of Selsey and is a relatively new name, first seen on Philip Overtons map of Sussex, in 1740. Selsey Bill consists of soft sands, sandy clays etc. it is the pointy bit of the peninsular, in other words the beach. The name Selsey Bill is usually interchangeable with Selsey. Not only is there no separate administration for Selsey Bill it does not physically exist on land. There is no sign saying welcome to Selsey Bill. There is a pub at the point called the Selsey Bill and there is a house in the area called Bill House but they are both next to the pointy bit! It is purely a point on the chart for maritime navigation. I think that we should remove the history section as it is really about Selsey and in any case happened before there was a coastal area known as Selsey Bill. Selsey Bill is a maritime construct but has very little reference to the sea on the Selsey Bill page. I would prefer Selsey Bill to be merged with Selsey, as geographically they are the same. I would not want it merged with the Manhood as that would be completely confusing. I suggest that it should be similar to the entry for Portland Bill in other words concentrate on the maritime stuff only, and remove the information more appropriate to the Selsey page. Wilfridselsey (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Strong Oppose - Selsey Bill is marked on OS maps; Manhood Peninsula isn't. It also has more than double the ghits. If any merge is appropriate it's the other way. Would tend to agree that there needs to be some kind of rationalisation between the articles on Selsey and here though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Selsey Bill is also on the maritime charts for the area!

The problem for me is that Selsey Bill is synonymous with Selsey. People will say they come from or are going to Selsey Bill when they actually mean Selsey. Heron-Allen wrote a book a about the local church at Selsey Bill when the church is physically in Selsey High Street.

Within the town, they talk about "The Bill" meaning a specific area of coastline. So if they said they lived near the Bill you would know what they were talking about. On land what is Selsey as opposed to Selsey Bill is very blurred. However from a maritime point of view Selsey Bill is very specific. Any sailor would know about Selsey Bill, however the Manhood would be somewhat of a mystery, and probably irrelevant.

If we are going to keep Selsey Bill as a seperate entity I would propose that we concentrate on it from a nautical point of view. I think that the introduction does that already. Scrap the existing history section as it is probably more appropriate to Selsey (it is inevitable that there will be an element of crossover). Concentrate on history specific to the Bill instead eg: as far as I know it was first mentioned Philip Overton's map of Sussex in 1740. There was some suggestion that it was so called in imitation of Portland Bill etc..

Perhaps in the popular references section we could include something of the discussion we have here eg:Selsey Bill being synonymous with Selsey. Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the merge template from the Manhood Peninsula article, as we seem to agree that Selsey Bill should 'not be merged with it! The charter that created the Manhood predates the existence of Selsey Bill in anycase. Also the Henry VIII charter (which essentially copies the original Anglo Saxon charters) defines the boundary of the Manhood as the coastline, so one could say that technically Selsey Bill is not part of the Manhood anyway as it lies on or beyond the coastline!! Of course the coastline was a mile or so further south when the original charter was produced, but that's another story.Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Update of article

I have updated the article in line with the discussion here. The main points being:

1. Connection with the sea
2. Connection with Selsey
3. History of the place name

Also tidied things up a bit and reorganised notes/ references. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)