Talk:Worth, West Sussex

I have rewritten this article since it seem to be uncertain of what it is discussing! There are two parts to Worth:

• the part now subsumed within Crawley New Town, but an ancient village nonetheless
• the civil parish, which has been much reduced from its original size.

I have therefore divided the article between those two parts.

There is some discussion as to the need to have a separate article for each of the neighbourhoods of Crawley: I agree with the suggestion that there is no need, and none of them can be truly called villages in any case! Peter Shearan 16:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Worth / Mid Sussex

From my extensive research of the Worth area I can clarify that the area actually falls in the Mid Sussex area. The place called Worth in Crawley has been renamed Worth by some bored residents who go around changing the signs!! That area actually falls into the neighbourhood of Pound Hill or Maidenbower. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.83.85.193 (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

The place "Worth" appears as far back as the Domesday book. While it is now, administratively part of Crawley, to claim that it has been renamed by "bored residents" ignores the 950 years of documented history prior to the establishment of Crawley New Town in the 1950s, and the fact that the Ecclesiastical Parish is "The Parish of Worth, Maidenbower and Pound Hill." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.163.58 (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge, with redirect

I propose that unless much more can be said about this settlement, the content should be merged to a topic more likely to receive search hits, and our readers given a more informative article overall. Rodhullandemu 23:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Worth, West Sussex. 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/20110608075926/http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/communityandliving/census2001/pop_parish_summary.pdf to http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/communityandliving/census2001/pop_parish_summary.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Worth Civil Parish and Worth Village

The statement 'Worth is a civil parish in the borough of Crawley and Mid Sussex district of West Sussex' is confusing - it can't be both. There is a civil parish in Mid Sussex District called Worth - the principal settlements being Copthorne and Crawley Down. It should have a separate page, as does every other civil parish in Mid Sussex. There is a part of Crawley called 'Worth' (labelled as such on the 1:25 000 OS map). It should be covered in the article on Crawley, or in a separate article called (perhaps) Worth Village, Crawley. Topo122 (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes it should be split back, while its true that we don't normally have separate articles for settlement and CP, this shouldn't apply when the CP doesn't include the settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)