Talk:St Nicholas Church, Brighton
 | Brighton (inactive) | |||
| ||||
 | A fact from St Nicholas Church, Brighton appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 April 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on St Nicholas' Church, Brighton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100823050314/http://www.womenofbrighton.co.uk/annamariacrouch.htm to http://www.womenofbrighton.co.uk/annamariacrouch.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/StatisticsPage/default.aspx?StatsCounty=EAST%20SUSSEX
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on St Nicholas' Church, Brighton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927010906/http://www.crsbi.ac.uk/ed/sx/brigh/index.htm to http://www.crsbi.ac.uk/ed/sx/brigh/index.htm
- Added archive https://archive.is/20030722082832/http://www.womenofbrighton.co.uk/marthagunn.htm to http://www.womenofbrighton.co.uk/marthagunn.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061021211335/http://stpeterschurchbrighton.org.uk/history.html to http://www.stpeterschurchbrighton.org.uk/history.html
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.diochi.org.uk/cgi-bin/showparishes3.pl?clergycode=AB2311 - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927010906/http://www.crsbi.ac.uk/ed/sx/brigh/index.htm to http://www.crsbi.ac.uk/ed/sx/brigh/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Font date[edit]
This nonsense appears in the article
A font from the mid-14th century was carved around 1170? Please can someone correct this. They could also address the matter of why the date of construction is repeated at the start of the next paragraph. It seems be a case of people just dumping information in the article with bothering to think about how it fits into the overall sense. John Price (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Looking back at the article history, I can see that some text has been removed (without explanation) which alters the context of the sentences. I will fix in a bit when I dig my book sources out. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)