Jump to content

Talk:Brighton/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Tidying-up project

The Brighton article (and its associated sub-articles) had become a little too large; a "tidy up" project was started. This is entirely inclusive – in other words, you can help!

To see how some of the tidy up choices were decided upon, please consult the archives of this talk page, as well as this current page. Your question may well have already been addressed.

Optionally, you can add your name here if you want to help – other users may use this list to leave a question or message on your talk page.

Language schools and their students

Does anyone know of any good sources to provide some evidence of the number of English language schools and their students? At the moment the article just has a sort-of assertion about the number of students. It's not really a subject I've ever really seen written about in books on Brighton, but perhaps I'm reading the wrong books! --Seaweed 19:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Politics

There is no European Parliamentary Seat corresponding to Brighton & Hove. It is part of the multiple-member South East England seat. One of the ten MEPs for the seat, elected by PR, is a green. The phrase : "They (The Green Party) also hold the European Parliament seat." is completely without basis. If were arguing that most of the Green Party's votes in that election came from Brighton, well that might be true, but the sentance will need to be completely re-phrased and backed up with a citation of some kind. --Indisciplined 22:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right – I think the article is just economically (and poorly) worded, rather than attempting to propogandise though – in other words I don't get the sense that the original editor was "arguing" anything ;) I've tweaked the wording, hope it's more accurate now. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 11:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Much better. (Was using the word 'arguing' in a broad sense, by the way). --Indisciplined 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Pleased to see the glaring error on Green seat for Brighton has been corrected. The Green MEP is Caroline Lucas, and maybe that she be added. She is a very hard working MEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.17.22 (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The map is broken

For some reason the link to the map image no longer works. I tried to link back to it, but the image is not centred properly (a bit link this [1]). Anyone know how to fix it? --Seaweed 19:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work on fixing the link to the map of Brighton, KeiranT. --Seaweed 22:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Update

Hi, Hola, Shalom (whichever works for you) I am the mediator in the Mediation Cabal case about this article and a dispute within it. I have protected the article for the time being, until a resolution can be reached. I will resume mediation talks next Sunday, one week from now. Thanks all! WikieZach| talk 16:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The page will be fully protected at 17:00 or 1PM EST WikieZach| talk 16:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
And indeed, the page gained the "protected" tag this evening, and it's still there. So, I'm wondering how it comes to be that an anonymous user deleted an external link tonight. Presumably something more than the tag is required? – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Update: Administrator User:Yanksox has clarified that the mediator only placed the notification of protection tag, rather than actually protecting the page. Yanksox has therefore removed the tag and ruled that protection is unneccessary since the mediation process appears to be sufficient. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 00:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Where are the Pictures ?

If People want to look up a referance to Brighton, they would want to see pictures. I do. Not a load of boring old drivel, which is what it is now. Brighton was and IS a sea side resort, born about by holiday makers. Lets see some examples of it. Also while I'm at it, lets see and read some more info on the pier, the marina, the queer pride (or whatever it is), info on the many car/bike rallies to Brighton - Links with Hove, references to the filming of 'Carry on' films, sea life centre, the famous chip shop, the arches, the going rate for deck chairs, the brilliant state of the art nightclubs and all the other stuff that SHOULD be there. Not just the boring 'factualk' text.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.76.238 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for joining the effort to improve the article. In fact there are quite a lot of pictures available; look at the external links section to see some sources, and also the link to Wikimedia commons which has a lot of pictures which have been uploaded with a usable license.
As for the items you mention like the pier – many of them actually have their own articles because the Brighton one became too long. That's not just a "style" decision – there are technical problems with Wikipedia articles over a certain length which can cause data to be lost (when the article is edited by certain browsers.)
To hopefully help you out, I've listed some of the relevant articles here for you to check out. They're all already linked from the main article:
If you want to imrpove the very small separate article on the Brighton Marina, that would be great!
– Kieran T (talk | contribs) 10:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


I agree with KT, there are good pictures on all external links, this would appear to be suitable grounds for retaining link to

"www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

whatever name KT decides the page should be eventually called.

There used to be a good picture of the beach scene on the Wikipedia Brighton page, but one of the the two guardians/owners (either KT or Seaweed) of the Brighton page removed the picture, because if you scrutinised the picture closely you could just about see a girl in a thong. However, is this not a typical beach scene in Brighton? Therefore, should this picture not be reinstated, as being typical of the Brighton Beach scene, as the photo was actually taken there? Are KT and Seaweed censoring what is to be be found in Brighton? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.186.15 (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Pleased to see the Brighton Beach picture is back.

How about some pictures of last week's Gay Pride parade and the action afterwrds which really show the Brighton gay and lesbian scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.17.23 (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What a shame there's more info on the talk page than the article. Can we have some more links and pictures HERE please. I cant be arsed to do any myself when I know they'll just be removed. And I know there's lots of willing wiki pedians out there just itching to contribute.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Clever dicky (talk • contribs) 11:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Beach soccer tournament

I notice that the article says that there is an annual beach soccer tournament. I know it used to happen, but is it still going? I found a link to a mini-World Cup tournament for schoolchildren here in June this year, but I don't think that's the same thing. Anyone know? --Seaweed 16:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


What a shame there's more info on the talk page than the article. Can we have some more links and pictures HERE please. I cant be arsed to do any myself when I know they'll just be removed. And I know there's lots of willing wiki pedians out there just itching to contribute.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Clever dicky (talk • contribs) 11:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Well where are they?!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukbn2 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Beach soccer

I have personal photos of the building of the first beach soccer stadium in 2002 -worth a write/mention etc? Also pics of cantona playing etc Ukbn2 14:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"London-by-the-sea".

"I think calling it Hollywood-by-the-Sea is a little bit grand at the moment but it has certainly been known as London-by-the-Sea for a while."[2] "The place they call London by the Sea is the only place to be this weekend."[3] "Brighton has outgrown its title of 'London by the Sea'. It's now a city - creative, fun-loving, stylish and still a little bit naughty."[4] ????S????? 02:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that books and websites usually say "the place they call...". Who's "they"? I'm still looking for some actual evidence that people really call Brighton "London-by-the-Sea". Although I know we've been here before. :) --Seaweed 16:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Got a feeling,Seaweed, that its one of those urban myths - like baby spice living in the van allen building on the sea front.Ukbn2 14:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh and those slogans really do sound ridiculous with hindsight - i remember the local worthing newspaper saying that worthing was "the new ibiza" back in 2000 hee hee Ukbn2 14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have completely revised the article on Whitehawk and welcome people to look it over and add/edit etc to help improve this. I am planning to unstub Brighton Marina as my next project.

For Seagulls fans, I have also written an article on Peter Ward.

Also related to Brighton is an article I wrote on Martha Gunn.

Likewise I would appreciate any improvements to these articles.

This Brighton article is looking good now btw. Fork me 09:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh-oh, external links again... hopefully we won't revisit the recent spam-link debacle. In fact, in general it's the opposite which is happening just now, as user David D. is cleaning up some "personal blogs" and spam and suchlike. However, there's one link which I believe is thoroughly useful, which was removed earlier, then I returned to the page and then recently David removed it again. I'd like to sound people out about this one (and offer a case for the link.)

In the edit summary (hopefully he'll join the discussion here), David D. asks "how is free advertising for flickr not spam?" The reason is simple; spam isn't defined by what website gets "free advertising" but by the relevance and usefulness of the content provided. Otherwise, we might as well say that links to WikiMedia were advertising for the WikiMedia organisation, and references in discussion pages to Google hits were free advertising for Google.

The link to flickr (which I vaguely recall I added) is carefully chosen to point to the Brighton images "group", rather than any particular user, and additionally, many flickr images (the majority, in my judgement, but I can't back that up) are licensed using creative commons licenses, very much in the spirit of Wikipedia.

External links are generally discouraged by various Wikipedia policies, but one has to be sensible and some are just plain useful to readers.

I'd be interested to read other people's opinions on this, but in the absence of strong objections, I'm minded to put the link back again. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 16:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it should go back in. To claim it is spam is absurd. Fork me 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I was being a little wanton in my editing. I don't know too much about flickr but I have a sense we may need to be careful linking to such content. Certainly it should be of a high quality to warrant an external link. If you are willing to defend this link strongly then I am willing to let it stay in the page. Your arguments above sound reasonable. Please don't take my edits personally, I saw my edits as general housekeeping since the number of external links seemed way over the top. David D. (Talk) 17:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much David – it's a breath of fresh air to see issues resolving nicely on talk pages :-) And please don't worry, you didn't come across as doing anything I would take personally. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 17:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but i'm new to Wikipedia and it's aims/objectives - I placed the link to http://brightondailyphoto.blogspot.com/ some time ago. It's not a website advertising anything or selling anything - it's just a photo of Brighton/Hove every day - fresh. Judging by the amount of traffic it received from the Wiki other users found it useful too. Would it be reincluded?

In general blogs are not viewed as a good source. Wikipedia should not be used as a tool to drive traffic to a blog or personal web site. Also I'm not sure that one picture a day is really worth an external link. Sorry. A compromise would be to upload your photos to wikipedia and form a gallery page fopr Brighton. Such an internal link would be useful. David D. (Talk) 19:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely sure I agree - the link was never included to drive traffic but as a resource for those looking for a recent picture of Brighton - not sure how the the link to Flickr is regarded/included/accepted given your comments above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.126.191 (talk • contribs)

I hate to be the one to say it, but the solution might be to say "one is enough" – and in that case the existing (flickr) one is arguably more use because (a) it takes the viewer immediately to a large pool of photos and (b) links to blogspot may be too much trouble to maintain anyway, since they can tend to get nuked from time to time by people patrolling for them (looking out for text blogs). – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 19:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Your choice. That's the democratic nature of the Wiki.

The following is from the Wiki: "The City Daily Photo Blog is a sub-genre of the Blog phenomenon that is changing the face of publishing. It is a combination of three different types: the Personal, Photo and Travel Blog.

From an original idea conceived in 2005 by Eric Tenin of Paris Daily Photo, the identifying features of these blogs are that they:

Are location centered; Are posted to regularly each day; Each has a photo and brief text. There are currently over 100 sites worldwide participating in this format, from the largest cities to small villages. Several tools have been created to help users navigate around the sites. These include:

A blogroll linking each site's page to all other sites in the ring A world photo map A webring Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Daily_photo_blog" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.126.191 (talk • contribs)

My argument is consistent with the idea that we do not want to be inundated with links to people blogs with photos. One is enough. Blogs and such also get caught up in the vanity policies too. As i said, you are free to upload your pictures to wikipedia. That is the whole point of the project. Is there a reason why you wish to maintain control of the pictures? If so they are probably not what wikipedia is looking for. David D. (Talk) 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

As of 10 November 2006, per WP:WIAGA, here's my assessment to this article:

  • (1.a) - This is my major concern of this article. There are a lot of orphaned paragraphs, which either should be merged or expanded. The prose is not written as an encyclopaedic way, but rather as a directory page.
  • (1.b) - There are too many stubby sections with only 1-2 paragraphs per (sub)section. Please expand more.
  • (3.a) - The article is not broad enough. Please expand more the sections.

Conclusion: this article has a promise for GA, but currently is not yet ready. The article looks like unfinish to me. Briefly, the article looks like a page in a lonely planet guide book. Please make a comparison with other similar GA articles. When the above issues are resolved, editors may renominate this article again. As always, if you feel disagree with my reviews, you are welcomed to submit at WP:GA/R. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 11:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Twin towns

How come no twin towns are listed? I sure Brighton has some (but can't think of any at the moment). Anyone have any idea how to get such a list? (I can't find anything on the B&H council site). A bit iffy 13:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Layout

The contents of the article may have been tidied up, but visually it looks awful now - large chunks of whitespace everywhere... Gsd2000 14:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why no mention of churches?

Brighton has probably the highest concentration of architecturally outstanding churches outside London: why is there no mention of them? I have some good photos of St. Bartholomew's, St. Paul's and St. Peter's, which may be of some use, but I lack the historical knowledge required to construct good articles about them.--Vox Humana 8' 15:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion

I am writing some stuff detailing religious denominations in Brighton and places of worship. Will post soon.Ukbn2 11:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I took out the reference to St Bartholomew's Church being the same dimensions as Noah's Ark, as this is little more than popular local rumour. I even saw the priest on a recent television programme claiming that he did not know where this rumour originated. You can visit the website of the church at the following link (note how they do not mention the alleged Noah's Ark dimensions at all): http://www.stbartholomewsbrighton.org.uk/aboutus.htm GullGull 18:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, is it worth listing St Andrew's (as far as I know, now closed and often overlooked) church down Waterloo Street? This was built to the designs of Charles Barry (the designer of the Houses of Parliament). All I have to prove this, however, is photocopied documents from the Brighton Library - if anyone can provide links to better sources, please go ahead! GullGull 19:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Brighton Pier involvement in destruction of West Pier

An anon IP editor (81.171.250.170 added information regarding the destruction of the west pier: diff & diff. I've marked it with a {{fact}} tag, and if no citation for the claims is forthcoming, I'm going to chop it. --RedHillian 15:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's had long enough for someone to find a source. It's going. --RedHillian 01:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hove, actually

The mention of "Hove, actually" has been deleted as "highly dubious". Not sure what the editor means by that (it's undoubtedly a common phrase) but they're quite right to call it dubious if they meant that in the sense that its presence in the article is original research, i.e. unreferenced. It had one semi-reference, but only a link to a film in which it was used. Does anybody have a reference to its popular use, which would allow us to return it? Please note that this also affects the Hove article, where the statement is repeated (still). – Kieran T (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few that I reckon are solid enough: [5] [6] [7].--A bit iffy 09:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I check this every now and again, and this has been removed AGAIN! - what's up with you people. As for references- just search 'The Argus' website and find hundreds. Jooler 17:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

...has been moved to a subpage Talk:Brighton/External Link Debate because of its length. PLEASE ADD YOUR COMMENTS THERE RATHER THAN FILL UP THIS PAGE Gsd2000 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What right does wikithug Gsd2000 have to tell people where to put their comments? I can think of a very appropriate palce where he should stuff his!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.17.22 (talk • contribs)

More to the point, that insures that no one will see them. I just tried to do my occasional bit for Wickedpedia and add a link to this (excellent) page on Brighton that I bumbled across while doing something else — and got some kind of automated message saying that the entire server was "spam". Thinking to point out that there must be some kind of error, maybe somebody had temporarily hijacked the domain or something but now clearly there's no problem, I come here and find that (a) I'm told to bury any discussion of the site where it wont be seen; (b) apparently some loon out there has decided that it's the actual Brighton page! that is "spam". Since the page doesn't advertise for anything, doesn't try to rent me apartments, isn't concealing a porn site, etc.; but, instead, is a very informative and balanced page on the city of Brighton, I gotta conclude that the first guy to come up with the idea of labelling it as spam has either got a screw loose or some kind of personal vendetta for reasons unrelated to the webpage. Considering all the junk on Wikipedia (long articles on porn operators and Pokemon cards), and the frequent solicitations for money on Wikipedia, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. No wonder Wikipedia has such a bad reputation, as a place not to be taken seriously.... Bill 21:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You should get acquanited with the authors edits here in wikipedia before passing judgement. See the following link: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/327726.html It shows a little of what authors at this page and other town pages here in wikipedia have had to deal with. Not to mention that wikipedia should not be a link farm to everyones favourite web page.David D. (Talk) 21:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Poppycock. That's not the page being marked as "spam". The page on Brighton (regardless of anything else the author may have done (and other people's opinion of him), is a good solid page with a lot of information. Tossing out a link to a page useful to the readers of Wikipedia because some other page related to it is irrelevant or contentious is much like saying Wikipedia's article on quantum physics is bad because Wikipedia frequently prefaces it with an appeal for funds, and because Wikipedia also has bad or stupid articles on many other unrelated subjects. Bill 21:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
See this one then. http://wwwdotheurekadotclara.net/surrey-hants/ald-shot.htm It is basically a POV rant with some good stuff in there too. It is clear these pages are not objective and to block stuff like that you block the whole domain. The block would not have been necessary except this author insists on replcing these web pages back into wikipedia against consensus. Clearly he is using wikipedia to promote his web site. Worse, he is trying to edit his POV on to the wikipedia pages too. Long ago he lost the trust and goodwill of editors here, hence the spam block. David D. (Talk) 21:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
And please remember, Bill, to remain civil. "Poppycock" may not be swearing, as such, and it's a wonderfully colourful word, but it doesn't show a great deal of respect for David D. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 21:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Bill - the right thing to do is integrate any missing information into the Brighton article on Wikipedia. There is absolutely no reason to link to this guy's home page on Brighton or any other town. For starters, who has validated the content of his site? Other Wikipedia editors have no control over it. And, in what capacity is he being linked to? Not because he's an official body or anything like that. He's just some geezer who's written a webpage, and a geezer bent on self-promotion at that. Gsd2000 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Just came across this alternative POV of the issue whilst Googling - [8]. Posted here since the subpage has been blanked. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Layout

Anyone have any idea how to fix the layout of this page? All the "edit" buttons are clumped together above the Sports section, instead of appropriately placed. —TheBY 09:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a template to fix that problem: Template:FixHTML
However, I've never put it into this page because it requires a number of different tags to be used around the problem elements (the right-aligned thumbnails). Since the images in this article are quite "busy" – people add extra ones and fiddle with them from time to time – the "fix" would require maintenance. Perhaps somebody feels like volunteering to provide that! ;) – Kieran T (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've fixed the "bunching". Shouldn't be very difficult to maintain - if someone wants to insert an extra picture, just add an extra {{FixHTML|mid}} line to separate it. See WP:BUNCH.
--NSH001 01:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the image placement in this article is pretty awful. It isn't good practice to just place them all in a row at the top of the article and let them filter into whatever section they end up in. Images should be placed in the correct section that describes them, or that they describe, if possible. Some of the images aren't great or particularly useful. I've got a good panoramic photo that describes a lot and isn't duplicated by any of the existing images, but being panoramic, it ideally needs to take a full row in the article, but because of the way the images are inserted it doesn't work at all well with them. I'm going to be bold and shuffle the images around to see how it works. Just a head's up, so you understand the motivation behind it. Will try to maintain it as best I can. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit about Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.

87.86.171.165 recently made the edit below, which I reverted because he/she didn't provide any source. If the comment is actually true, feel free to put it back in the article:

Brighton is home of Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club, who played at the Goldstone Ground for 95 years until it was sold secretly in 1995 by then chairman Bill Archer, who had bought a controlling stake in the club for just £56.25. The sale was highly conroversial, not least because there were no plans in place for the construction of a replacement stadium. Many still believe Archer always planned to profit from the clubs demise and never intended to find them a new home.

Laurent (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Domesday

I suspect that the statement that "a rent of 4,000 herring was established" is rather misleading: Domesday did not establish rents, it merely recorded them. Also, http://www.mybrightonandhove.org.uk/page_id__8279_path__0p1364p1445p.aspx (taken from Carder) indicates this is only the rent for one manor, and Brighton was covered by three manors at that time. --Pfold (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

hehe, good recording

i lived there and i assure you, 'o' is barely pronounced. I'm not english speaking natively but it sounded that way. They might as well write it Brightn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athinker (talk • contribs) 16:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Brighton's Jewish community

The article currently states the following:

About 12% of the population of the Brighton & Hove conurbation are of Jewish ancestry, with a little less than half presently practicing some form of Judaism, according to a 2007 study by the European Jewish Press.

But the figures given on the ukpollingreport.co.uk website for the three constituencies in the conurbation are 0.6% for Brighton Kemptown, 0.8% for Brighton Pavilion and 2.3% for Hove. Something of a discrepancy. Googling, the only other references to this demographic were on mirror sites. Philip Cross (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with the first line of the article

Is it only me or is there something wrong with the first line of the actual text in the article. The first word "Brighton" seems to be dangling high above away from the rest of the text. Is it possibly my preference, (Vector) skin, and therefore should I alter that? If so, it is the first time I have ever noticed anything like it. Let me know if this is happening to anyone else, it is rather disconcerting, I don't seem to be able to edit it to a different position. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Brighton, not Hove

Most of this article seems to be about Brighton and Hove, rather than just Brighton, which is understandable seeing as most information about Brighton (statistics, etc) covers the entire city rather than just the town of Brighton and because the two towns are so closely connected, but this needs to be changed as the article is separate from that of Hove and information about Hove (such as mentioning the cricket ground, the Hove constiuency or several schools that are actually in Hove in the 'education' section) is not relevant to the article. I intend to work on this soon but obviously it would be great if others could help 'brightonise' or 'de-hove' (whichever you prefer...) this article. - TheLeftGloveTalk To Me 21:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Brighton uk.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Brighton uk.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 9 December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this relevant to anyone?

I'm dubious about whether the 'beard and moustache' competition deserves a mention. I'm even more dubious about this: Additionally, Brighton is permanent home to notable moustache advocate Michael "Atters" Attree. Seems clear it was added by the subject and is of interest to nobody but him. Shall I delete?

I've just checked and he has an entire article. Is there any way to prevent people adding articles for the sole purpose of self-aggrandization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.252.191 (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The beard and moustache thing in 2007 was quite big news locally at the time, and would be worth mentioning in a Culture of Brighton and Hove article (one of these days I'll get round to writing that...!), but I agree that it's probably not necessary in the Brighton article. Put it this way: I have been planning a wholesale rewrite of this article for some time, and I wouldn't even have considered including it. Having said that, because the championship and the organising entity have their own articles, it might be worth a short sentence. I don't think "Atters" needs to be mentioned in this article. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 23:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll delete the reference to "Atters". His ego will just have to survive without an entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.218.171 (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

First Brighton Wiki Meetup

You are invited to the first Brighton Wiki Meetup which will take place at The West Quay, Brighton Marina Village, Brighton BN2 5UT on Sunday 28 April 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Brighton topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi everyone, I've just noticed vandalism on this page, but it's intersepted with good edits. Can someone please fix it? George8211what did I break now? 20:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

This article reminds me of the Vogue Gyratory on the Lewes Road ... messy and confusing. As a long-term project, I would like to restructure and rewrite it using high-quality sources. See User:Hassocks5489/Brighton for a proposed structure. Any help, comments etc. welcome of course! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 07:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Finally, it's underway! This article is likely to change significantly over the next few days/weeks/months as I add sourced content I have been working on in a sandbox. New structure as well! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 00:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Seafront and images

An image of the seafront that could illustrate the section better than the existing image?
Current image

It seems that the article is already quite loaded with images. However, I'm not convinced that the one photo of the nudist beach in Kemptown is really the best image to illustrate the beaches/seafront section. I noticed also that an image I took a while back (which is actually a featured picture) has been removed from the article. I'm not sure exactly when or for what reason it was removed, but I think it's a far more illustrative image, showing about as much of the seafront atmosphere and variety that is possible in one photo. However, being of panoramic dimensions, it does mean that the image has to be wider than normal in order to be properly visible as a thumbnail. I didn't want to just jam it back in there as I don't think it would be appreciated and would possibly be a conflict of interest. So I'm bringing it up in here in the hope that we'll be able to find a home for it and/or illustrate the subject better. I think that although Brighton is much more than just the seafront, it's got an extremely small section dedicated to it. Perhaps an expansion would be part of the solution. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Diliff. Short answer: I agree! Longer answer: I have worked a lot on this article a lot over the years, but more on the text than the images (although I have thousands of the latter to upload to Commons in due course). The distribution and quality of images as they stand at the moment has long bothered me; I don't recall ever seeing yours in the article, so it must have been removed a long time ago, but it is the better one. I think we can lose the nudist beach and pebbles-and-yachts pics and substitute yours, but I'm not sure whether to put it in as a thumbnail or centre it as a panorama at the bottom of the "Beaches" section. I'll think about it over the weekend. Hopefully in due course I will continue my revamp of the article, which has been on hold for a while. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and I'm glad you agree with me. The image was a featured picture in 2009, and was in the article at that time. But it could have been removed a long time ago. It's difficult to keep track of all my images. I do find though that when I look through the history to find exactly when and why it happened, it's usually without any real explanation in the edit summary. Sometimes it appears that it's because another photographer wants to slot his (often inferior) photo in, sometimes it's an editor with an agenda to cull images without prejudice, and ends up removing the good ones. Ah well, such is life. I'll try to keep an eye on the article to see what you manage to achieve. :) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Brighton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead Seems too long

A more concise lead to this article would be nice. It was too long for me to bother reading it all. Just a suggestion.--Lucas559 (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed .User:Lucas559. I have made a start on trimming it. SovalValtos (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The introduction has got very long, hasn't it! In the Manual of Style, there is the WP:LEAD guidance. I'll have a go at trimming the lead section. Seaweed (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 36 external links on 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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Brighthelmston

There seems to be some conflict. Associated in the sentences regarding the "Domesday Book", in the title the name is given as "Brighthelmston" and in the history section "Bristelmestune". I am aware of the name changes, but at present both names are associated - atleast tacitly - with the 11th century. I would clear it up myself, but I don't know the answer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.19.21.168 (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

It's "Brighthelmstone" sometimes too. User:Seaweed (if I remember the name rightly) did a considerable amount of research on this, and the versions of the name given at the time of his (or her) last edit were spelled precisely correctly based on the given sources. I'll trawl through to check they've not been corrupted, but basically the variations you've spotted are intentional. Whether they were ever accepted spellings is unclear, but we can only (and must) go with what the verifiable sources say. – Kieran T (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right, Kieran, about Bristelmestune. The somewhat dated authority on English place-names is The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-names, Eilert Ekwall, 1936; I have the fourth edition of 1960. Ekwall says nothing about "Brighthelmstone", so it is for those who propose this word to produce some evidence. The full entry from Ekwall is << "Brighton Sx [Bristelmestune DB, -tuna 1107-18 AC]. 'Beorhthelm's TUN.' >> DB obviously refers to the Domesday Book, and AC refers to Ancient Charters, as printed by the Pipe Roll Society in 1888. Beorhthelm is a well-attested Saxon name; see http://www.pase.ac.uk/jsp/persons/CreatePersonFrames.jsp?personKey=11296 . TUN means fence - enclosure - village. Appearances are deceptive when it comes to place names: Bristelmestone [with an 'o'] is also mentioned in DB as a village in Oxfordshire, derived also from Beorhthelm's TUN, but it has emerged today as Brighthampton. If you cared to re-draft the name-derivation bit, Kieran or a wiki-expert, I should be glad to second you. I am not an experienced editor and so would prefer to let others lead. 14:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Philostorgius — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philostorgius (talk • contribs)

I rewrote and referenced the etymology section a little while ago. Brighthelm(e)ston is attested between C14 and C18 in the Victoria County History: "Bristelmestune (xi cent.); Brighthelmeston (xiv-xviii cent.)." The Book of the Auncient Customs heretofore used amonge the Fishermen of the Toune of Brighthelmston was written in 1581. History of Brighton gives some more versions with dates, cited to Glover (1975), The Place-Names of Sussex, but I don't have this to hand. I have found no evidence to suggest the Bristelmestune spelling persisted much beyond the C12; it seems the name gradually evolved into Brighthelm(e)ston by, if not some time before, the C16. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Location on Location Map Needs Fixing!

I'd fix this myself but I have no idea how to do it. The location map in the Infobox gives more or less correct geographic coords, but the dot placement for Brighton is in the middle of the English Channel midway between Calais and Dover. This is obviously wrong. Could someone please fix this? Also, a link to instructions on how to fix it would be nice, for my benefit!

Secondarily, the current geographic coords puts the location of the city about 1.8 miles north of the Town Hall. Shouldn't the Town Hall be the location? Or is the listed location supposed to be the geographic center of the city? It might be placed correctly, if the latter.  :-) Cyberherbalist (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Brighton is a city

Hi everyone, can we please change Brighton from Town to City . We are not a Town anymore. Brighton & Hove is one City. We can’t still be 2 separate towns after we are given City status.who says we are? We are one. Yes there’s Brighton yes there’s Hove different parts of the City Brighton & Hove, I think it should say something like Brighton, City In England otherwise know as Brighton & Hove then go into the detail of the history Glman83 (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"Who says we are?" – I think the wording on the official seal of the City of Brighton and Hove is definitive...

ELIZABETH the SECOND BY THE GRACE OF GOD OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND & OF OUR REALMS & TERRITORIES QUEEN HEAD OF THE COMMONWEALTH DEFENDER OF THE FAITH. To all whom these Presents shall come Greeting. Whereas We for divers good causes and considerations Us thereunto moving are graciously pleased to confer on the Towns of Brighton and Hove the status of a city. Now Therefore Know Ye that We of Our especial grace and favour and mere motion do by these Presents ordain declare and direct that the TOWNS OF BRIGHTON AND HOVE shall henceforth have the status of a CITY and shall have all such rank liberties privileges and immunities as are incident to a City. In witness whereof We have caused Our Letters to be made Patent Witness Ourself at Westminster the thirty first day of January in the forty ninth year of our reign. By Warrant under The Queens Sign Manual.

(Quoted at https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/council-and-democracy/councillors-and-committees/brighton-hove-crest)
The town (and borough) of Brighton joined with the town (and borough) of Hove in 1997 to form the unitary authority of Brighton and Hove. It was this unitary authority that was given city status in February 2001. It did not change the status of the two towns which make up the unitary authority. To state that "Brighton [on its own] is a city" is equivalent to stating "Hove [on its own] is a city". Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 17:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes so that says one city right Glman83 (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

So is it not better to say Brighton a former Town that merged with Hove to create the City Brighton & Hove? Glman83 (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

declare and direct that the TOWNS OF BRIGHTON AND HOVE shall henceforth have the status of a CITY Glman83 (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

declare and direct that the TOWNS OF BRIGHTON AND HOVE shall henceforth have the status of a CITY Glman83 (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

‘Henceforth’ Glman83 (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The two towns together. As I say, it is incorrect to refer to Brighton on its own (i.e. the bit which was covered by Brighton Borough Council until 1997) as a city, which is what changing the wording in the article would do, just as it would be incorrect to refer to Hove on its own as a city. Nowhere has it ever been stated in official publications that the status of Brighton on its own as a town has been revoked. However, if the "town" wording is objectionable, perhaps the following (or something similar) would be acceptable? Brighton (/ˈbraɪtən/) is a seaside resort in the county of East Sussex. It is a constituent part of the city of Brighton and Hove, created in 2001 from the formerly separate towns of Brighton and Hove. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 17:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
My tuppence worth - I read that proclamation the same was as Hassocks5489 - it says that Brighton is a town, which is part of the city of Brighton and Hove. However - that proclamation is a primary source, and isn't how Wikipedia should decide what to call Brighton - we follow the secondary sources, =bearing WP:COMMONNAME in mind. How do reliable secondary sources describe it? That's what would clinch this. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately the vast majority of literature about Brighton (and indeed Hove) was written before city status was granted. The principal post-City status work for Brighton is Collis (2010), The New Encyclopaedia of Brighton (which despite the name sits somewhere between secondary and tertiary source status), but other than quoting the wording of the Letters Patent above it doesn't shed any more light. I'll check Judy Middleton (2002), The New Encyclopaedia of Hove and Portslade (again, more secondary than tertiary despite the name) in a minute. Needless to say there are large numbers of book sources calling Brighton a town in the days when it was a town, not that that helps a lot. I'll investigate online as well. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 17:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That sounds perfect Glman83 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I also think the Hove one should change to the same as that too Glman83 (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Could we not merge all the wiki information from Brighton,Hove and Brighton and Hove onto the last one so it’s just Brighton & Hove city in England then go onto day about the history I think that would be correct Glman83 (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Could we not merge all the wiki information from Brighton,Hove and Brighton and Hove onto the last one so it’s just Brighton & Hove city in England then go onto day about the history I think that would be correct Glman83 (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Brighton & Hove City in England should be only one. All the information on the separate sites should be put onto this one 

Glman83 (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
This wouldn't be desirable because the separate places have a lengthy history which is unrelated to the modern unified city. It would be equivalent to merging Bromley, Sutton, Croydon, Penge etc. into the London article based on the fact they are now part of greater London. I appreciate that Brighton and Hove is a more complicated situation than your "average" city because two formerly separate towns/boroughs with entirely separate histories amalgamated, meaning that a lot of information that used to be available for one is now only available for the unified whole. (For example, it used to be possible to say definitively that "Brighton has xxx parks, xxx pubs, xxx car parks" etc. because these stats were officially published, and likewise for Hove; now, you can find out how many e.g. parks there are in the city of Brighton and Hove, but you can't extrapolate "Brighton" or "Hove" numbers from that without veering into original research.) Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok fair enough but I do feel strongly that the title Town should be replaced and the same for Hove too,the idea early sounded good to me Glman83 (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Brighton done … I'll do Hove when I've made a cup of tea. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That’s great thank you. When you get time can you also change on the picture too it says Town. Glman83 (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Done; it's an optional parameter in the infobox (section above the picture), so I've removed it. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Excellent,thank you for your help. Glman83 (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hove lead paragraph done as well. One day I hope to write History of local government in Brighton and Hove, along the lines of the Bristol version, to cover this topic fully from the ancient times (headboroughs, beadles etc.) to the present day. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

So I’m banned

So ive been banned now for what? I’ve asked over and over and over again for proof that in this day and age Brighton is a town yet I have none,yet I’ve put all the proof there in the queens letter that Brighton is no longer a town,so how can I stop this false information Glman83 (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Show me proof that in this day and age Brighton is a town

declare and direct that the TOWNS OF BRIGHTON AND HOVE shall henceforth have the status of a CITY and shall have all such rank liberties privileges and immunities as are incident to a City. I still can’t believe that after seeing this people still think Brighton is a town,oh better tell Brighton City airport to change their name and Brighton city sightseeing,Brighton City collage,Brighton City cabs aswel. Glman83 (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I really don't care what term is used to describe Brighton or Hove -- however it is incorrect to apply the designation of the collective entity Brighton and Hove to either of the constituent parts individually. I don't think term "town" has any prescribed official meaning under UK or English law. See Town#England and Wales. older ≠ wiser 16:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

How would you describe Brighton? Glman83 (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you agree that Brighton is a constituent part of the city of Brighton & Hove? Because that’s what was changed. Glman83 (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I see no issue whatsoever with referring to Brighton as a town (a term which has no legal definition) though it could just as well be called a community or resort town or anything else. But either Bright or Hove separately are not the same as the city. older ≠ wiser 17:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I do though as we are not? Maybe we should ask the queen who gave us City status? Glman83 (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It has been explained to you many times already -- the combined entity of Brighton and Hove was given city status. Neither of the constituent parts considered separately are cities. older ≠ wiser 20:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Well done real big of you and mature of you to bar me, I only asked you for some explanation as to why you think Brighton is still a town yet after asking numerous times you and no other can provide any? Yet I have shown you the letter of the queen that for some reason you can’t get your head around,I’d appreciate it if someone could back me on this as I feel you are too stubborn to except this. Glman83 (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Brighton is not a town Jamielwal (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

A word to the wise. Creating sockpuppet accounts be back up an argument is likely to get the sockmaster blocked from editing Wikipedia. Do not do it.Charles (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

How come this is changed but not main page

Brighton (disambiguation) Read in another language Watch this page Edit Look up Brighton in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. Brighton is a former town in East Sussex and constituent part of the city of Brighton and Hove Glman83 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

One page

Hi everyone,I been thinking would it be best if we had one Wikipedia page of Brighton & Hove seeing as we are one city rather than have 3 separate ones and have all information on one singal one. I think it would be more helpful and less confusing. Glman83 (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

No. It would be more confusing. There are three pages for three entities, namely two towns and the city that they now form. This is normal Wikipedia practise where historic towns form part of wider metropolitan boroughs.Charles (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

2 questions. 1. Why didn’t anyone change it for so long when another member changed the town wording and 2 yesterday Bkonrad changed the disambiguition to Brighton former town,so that’s been changed that but not the main page? I think Brighton former town now part of Brighton & Hove is correct. Glman83 (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Glman83: Because Wikipedia is a volunteer project and is a work in progress-- not everything gets updated right away or consistently. I JethroBT drop me a line 03:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Status of Brighton: a summary

So there's been some disagreement here and on related pages about whether Brighton is a town, its status within the city of Brighton and Hove etc. Below I have tried to summarise the verifiable facts and the points which are still potentially open to debate, so that everything is written down in one place and we have something to refer to in the future. Does everybody at least agree with the facts and the conclusions? Have I omitted or misrepresented anything? Sorry it looks like overkill, but I just thought it would be useful to set everything out in one place...


Facts relating to local government
  • Until 1 April 1997, Brighton was unequivocally a town (specifically, a town with borough status). The same was true of Hove.
  • On 1 April 1997, the unitary authority of Brighton and Hove was formed, at which point the status of Brighton as a separate entity (and the status of Hove as a separate entity) became unclear.
  • In February 2001, the unitary authority itself (not any specific part of it) was granted city status, creating the City of Brighton and Hove. I have attempted to summarise the verifiable facts and identify exactly what is potentially up for debate.


Conclusions we can derive from this
  • Brighton and Hove is a city. Not Brighton itself; not Hove itself; nor Portslade, Saltdean or any other bit which makes it up. The entity which is a city is the 33.8 square miles depicted in this map.
  • Brighton is now a constituent part of the city. The same is true of Hove, Ovingdean, Rottingdean, Mile Oak, etc.


Debatable bits
  • Does Brighton (i.e. the area covered by the former Borough of Brighton until 1 April 1997) retain the status of a town?
  • Does Hove retain the status of a town?


Interpretation
  • As far as I can tell, the majority view here is that Brighton as defined above is still a town, as well as being part of the city of Brighton and Hove.
    • This is mainly because of the absence of any legal wording removing "town" status, either at the time the unitary authority was created or at the time the unitary authority became a city.
    • Also, the mention of "the towns of Brighton and Hove" in the Letters patent granting city status is significant.
  • I have not yet found a reference in any post-1997 reliable source calling either Brighton or Hove a "town", but that doesn't meen such a source doesn't exist. Further research is needed.
  • Personally, I am happy with the wording "Brighton is a constituent part of the city of Brighton and Hove..." as an alternative to "town", although I know it's a bit clunky. I am also happy with "Brighton is a town..." in the lead, where the nuances are less important: they can be explained in the body of the article (which I am happy to do/expand).


I think somebody needs to do some research in The Keep, looking through documents relating to local government around 1997–2001, to try to sort out the "debatable bits". Who's going there next?! (Probably me...)
Final point: the three articles (Brighton, Hove and Brighton and Hove) should on no account be combined, merged etc. The reasons for this have been described earlier on this talk page. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
When given City status Brighton & Hove became one place. For people to say Brighton is a town then they must be saying Brighton is in Brighton & Hove which doesn’t make sense? Glman83 (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I feel town should be removed and should say Brighton constituent part of the City of Brighton & Hove that way it’s not saying Brighton is a town or City but part of a city which is right Glman83 (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
pleased to confer on the Towns of Brighton and Hove the status of a city. Now Therefore Know Ye that We of Our especial grace and favour and mere motion do by these Presents ordain declare and direct that the TOWNS OF BRIGHTON AND HOVE shall henceforth have the status of a CITY and shall have all such rank liberties privileges and immunities as are incident to a City. If we read this carefully the towns now have city status. People are finding this confusing because it was 2 towns. So say if it was one town in the first place and the letter said pleased to confer the town of Brighton city status the town of Brighton shall henceforth have the status of city would you still class it as a town? Glman83 (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Brighton | Encyclopedia.com https://www.encyclopedia.com/.../british-and-irish-political-geography/brighton
Brighton and Hove, city and unitary authority (1991 pop. 134,581) and district, SE England. It was formed by the merger of the boroughs of Brighton and Hove in 1997, and became a city in 2000.
Hove | Encyclopedia.com https://www.encyclopedia.com/places/britain-ireland-france-and-low-countries/british...
Brighton and Hove* City on the English Channel [1], East Sussex [2], s England [3]. Originally a fishing village, it was popularized as a resort by the Prince Regent ( George IV), who had the Royal Pavilion rebuilt here in oriental style by John Nash [4]. Glman83 (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Encyclopedia.com Results
Typed Brighton town in Encyclopedia and came up error. Glman83 (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Nothing coming up just Brighton & Hove city which it needs to be changed too Glman83 (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I've had a chance to review the discussion and sources here. I don't think Brighton should be characterized as a city on its own. I think it is fine to refer it as a town based on previous sources, but another possibility could be to refer to it as a "part of the city of Brighton and Hove" without worrying about what sort of populated place to refer to it as specifically. Does that language work for everyone? I JethroBT drop me a line 03:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
There is an element of WP:Recentism here. Brighton has been a town for a fair while and I just do not see any need to change the status quo.Charles (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for your email. The former towns of Brighton and Hove formed a unitary authority and as you point out gained city status as Brighton & Hove. Whilst many people choose to regard Brighton, and Hove, as separate towns, they are constituent parts of the city of Brighton & Hove.

Kind regards, Nathan Phillips -- Office of Lloyd RUSSELL-MOYLE MP For Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven Constituency (For casework and local diary requests) 11 Hunns Mere Way, Woodingdean BN2 6AH 01273 550121, lloyd@russell-moyle.co.uk Website: russell-moyle.co.uk Twitter: @lloyd_rm Facebook: fb.com/lloydrussellmoyle Glman83 (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for your email. The former towns of Brighton and Hove formed a unitary authority and as you point out gained city status as Brighton & Hove. Whilst many people choose to regard Brighton, and Hove, as separate towns, they are constituent parts of the city of Brighton & Hove.

Kind regards, Nathan Phillips -- Office of Lloyd RUSSELL-MOYLE MP For Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven Constituency (For casework and local diary requests) 11 Hunns Mere Way, Woodingdean BN2 6AH 01273 550121, lloyd@russell-moyle.co.uk Website: russell-moyle.co.uk Twitter: @lloyd_rm Facebook: fb.com/lloydrussellmoyle Glman83 (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes I think that would work,the word town is not right, part of the city of Brighton & Hove sounds good. Glman83 (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a need for change Charles because change has happened. Glman83 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

So are we agreed that seeing the sources the queens letter,the email I showed and encyclopaedia that we can change this? Glman83 (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Here’s my email back from Brighton mp

Thank you for your email. The former towns of Brighton and Hove formed a unitary authority and as you point out gained city status as Brighton & Hove. Whilst many people choose to regard Brighton, and Hove, as separate towns, they are constituent parts of the city of Brighton & Hove.

Kind regards, Nathan Phillips -- Office of Lloyd RUSSELL-MOYLE MP For Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven Constituency (For casework and local diary requests) 11 Hunns Mere Way, Woodingdean BN2 6AH 01273 550121, lloyd@russell-moyle.co.uk Website: russell-moyle.co.uk Twitter: @lloyd_rm Facebook: fb.com/lloydrussellmoyle Glman83 (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

So now can this please be changed. Glman83 (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

An MP's office is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, anymore than online encyclopedias are. Just stop this obsession for which there is no consensus.Charles (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you from Brighton? I am and everyone I speak to about it agrees with me,Brighton is not a town stop living in the past and get with the times. This is false information. Glman83 (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

constituent part of the city of Brighton and Hove

Does it actually exist, though? How do we know that 12 of B&H's wards are in Brighton? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.222.27 (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a constituent part (surely tautological) of a city, or are there just cities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.222.27 (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Can a group of wards constitute something real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.222.27 (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Please read the above discussions. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Hassocks5489. They seem inconclusive. My hunch is that Brighton doesn't exist; only B&H and its constituent wards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.222.27 (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Gentrification

In the History section there is the assertion "Gentrification since then has made Brighton more fashionable again. Recent housing in North Laine, for instance, has been designed in keeping with the area." What evidence is there for this? In particular that gentrification makes it MORE fashionable.SovalValtos (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not well written and could do with being removed. I am working my way through the History section, rewriting and referencing it, but haven't got beyond the 18th century yet :) That said, I think I can find sources to support the general thrust of that statement. I can think of several printed sources which would, for example, support the view that the likes of North Laine, Hanover and Queen's Park have changed within 20–30 years from run-down, undesirable parts of town to expensive, highly aspirational areas, especially for cash-rich people moving out of London. (Personally, I would have said that the gentrification of these areas, which absolutely has happened, was more of a consequence than a cause; but I need to review all the sources.) Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you User:Hassocks5489 for the swift reply and bravo for the work on History so far! The wording grated and I was tempted to remove it, but a re-write with sources would be much better. As there are some in mind I will leave it to others.SovalValtos (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
And yet, now the article is missing all references to Brighton's gentrification in the late 20th century. Can this be fixed?Bmcollier (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I haven't got round to this yet (after 6 years, which is a bit worrying!), but I can try to look into it. Fuller details should go in History of Brighton, though. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I've given it a go in the main article - will need to be replicated in the history article. Bmcollier (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Mods?

I'm sort of suprised there is only one mention of mods here, as Brighton is the spiritual home of the mod movement.

Mods? DragonofBatley (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Mod (subculture). I'd want to see sources for "Brighton is the spiritual home of the mod movement". There was a notorious brawl in Brighton between Mods and rockers in May 1964, and Brighton may still be one of the places most associated with mods in popular memory for that reason. However the conflict between mods and rockers was a protypical example of moral panic, and there were brawls in many other seaside towns too. More broadly speaking, motorbikes and motor scooters had recently become much more available and affordable to youngsters, different subcultures adopted them or even developed around them, members of those subcultures sometimes went on mass rides to seaside towns and sometimes the two groups fought. NebY (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Population

I'm not sure we should give the population of Brighton and Hove unitary district as the only figure in the infobox for this article about "Brighton". There is no 2011 census data for "Brighton", only "Brighton and Hove" BUASD, see Brighton and Hove built-up area#Places in the conurbation. There is 2001 data which is 134,293 and there is also 1961 data (163,159) for the County Borough of Brighton which became the non-metropolitan district (with the same boundaries) in 1974 however this isn't the current unparished area as the former county borough area now has Rottingdean parish and as a result Saltdean is also separate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Odd Landmark Section

Under "Landmarks", you say quite a bit about the i360, a loss-making folly currently looking for a new sponsor as British Airways will shortly be taking their name off the spindly embarrassment when their current contract ends. Yet you talk about it in such glowingly uncritical terms that I suspect the text may have been copied from some early i360 publicity material. Actually it only continues to operate at all because the city council have repeatedly deferred repayments on the enormous loan they provided for its construction, and its days are surely numbered. You might say a word or two about its relative unpopularity and precarious financial situation instead of trying to advertise the stupid thing.

Even more oddly, that section describes the West Pier in the present tense as "Grade I listed" and talks about its "eventual restoration". Excuse me, but although I haven't checked, I'm pretty sure it isn't currently listed as Grade I or any other level, because there's nothing left to list, or for that matter restore! The article implies that it's in a poor state but could be fixed and eventually will be. But as any recent picture would show (perhaps you should have one, since it's still a Brighton landmark, albeit rather a pathetic one?), it is now and has been for quite a number of years nothing but a skeletal remnant unconnected to the shore that gets a bit smaller with each storm. The pier is literally 99% gone! There are a couple of ticket booths where the landward end of it used to be, some girders sticking forlornly out of the sea, and that's yer lot! It's in a far worse state than Glasgow Art College or Notre Dame Cathedral ever was! Implying that it might somehow get better is a bit misleading, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.52.255 (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It is a Grade I-listed building... Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brighton/Archive_2&oldid=1244834262"