Talk:Brighton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brighton article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article Brighton was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
November 10, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource about Brighton and Hove. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or the Portal.
Brighton To do:
Wikipedia CD Selection Brighton is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!


Archive
Archives
  1. Beginning of discussions – 31 July 2006

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] Current discussions are below this point

[edit] External link to "www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

...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 - [1]. Posted here since the subpage has been blanked. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 [2]). 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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."[3] "The place they call London by the Sea is the only place to be this weekend."[4] "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."[5] ????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)

[edit] 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?


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.

[edit] 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)


Well where are they?!!

[edit] Brighton link should point here!

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Other articles in category:Brighton

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)

[edit] External links

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: [6] [7] [8].--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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)