Talk:Brighton/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Tidy up: History

OK, I've created the History of Brighton page and copied all the text(expect the IRA bombing bit, which has its own article) to the new page. Who's good at editing down the history section to provide an easy read for visiting Wikipedians? --Seaweed 20:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've given it a go. I've just rationalised the history section. I think my new section names might not be quite right. Please note all the original content was copied to the History of Brighton article. So I've made sure that I haven't removed information from Wikipedia overall, just attempted to get the balance right on the location of information. --Seaweed 19:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking good :) I see the Brighton Pier image has gone from all articles. Tempted to return it to the main one, but I suppose it will also make an appearance if the Piers get their own article. Hmm. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. One hack too far, but I'm thinking that the pier will get a spot with the Pavilion in the proposed "Landmarks" section. --Seaweed 19:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could end up with an article about victorian/regencey/georgian arcitechture etc. Inevitabley i will mention the "pepper pot" again.Ukbn2 18:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Major tidy up needed?

I think this article has turned into a bit of a mess and needs sorting out. Does anyone know of some good articles on British towns or cities that we can follow as a template? --Seaweed 16:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The more I read this article, the more ragged it appears. I've just been looking at Liverpool and that seems quite balanced. Tomorrow I'm going to try and go for a restructuring based on Liverpool. I suggest these sections:

Adminstration
History
Landmarks
Economy
Politics
Culture
Education
Transport
Sport
Trivia
See also
References
External links

What do you think? --Seaweed 21:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the article has a tendency to grow longer and longer, so I'd agree some changes would be good. There is probably scope for more separate articles, such as those on the Brighton Pavilion, the Brighton hotel bombing and the new one on the West Pier.

There is certainly a case for moving some of this article's content onto the Brighton & Hove page, as suggested some time ago.

However, I suspect if you make such radical changes all at once, you might find yourself embroiled in a bit of a debate afterwards! Just a thought here, but how would you feel about popping your proposed new page into this page—temporarily—first? Not standard procedure, but it would diffuse any complaints because the article any casual reader happened upon would still be the one which has been developed by consensus (the current one), until the new page had been given a once-over by the small band of regular editors at least. This way any debate would be less destructive ;) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, perhaps I should slow down! I suppose we could create a sub-page to this discussion page like this: Proposed updated Brighton article. --Seaweed 21:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Although we'll just go in circles. I can't quite help it, but I'm inclined to be bold!. I don't plan to go completely mad on the page. I'm also interested to see how many of us are prepared to edit the article. I'll leave it a week and see what everyone says. --Seaweed 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about circles and being bold! But, I've seen a few nasty squabbles occur on WP, and since this is a page I'd like to be involved in, I'd love to see it go smoothly. It's really nice to have some communicating going on :)

For what it's worth, I'm more than happy to put a bit of time in to help build the page, so just yell if you want to farm anything out. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It will be good to get everyone involved. There's no rush, so let's see who wants to contribute and we can use the Proposed updated Brighton article as a framework for the refreshed Brighton page. But you're right, the best approach is not to rock the boat too much. It's a day later and I've calmed down! --Seaweed 22:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion about rewriting, Seaweed. Every time I look at the Brighton article I get so put off by work needed to clean it up that I end up not bothering. Anyway, count me in! (Also, you asked for examples of other articles. I think Bath and Sheffield have both had featured articles in the past few months.) --A bit iffy 10:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

would it be worth putting the city's coat of arms somewhere in the article?

Pictures

I might also go about with a camera and take pictures of the major brighton landmarks, and add to the article. Is this a good Idea, or is there some limit of only a picture or two per page?

There's no limit to the number of pictures on the page, but I've noticed most articles keep the amount of images to just a few relevant ones. But upload new pictures and from time to time we can change the pictures. Also other articles might find your pictures useful. --Seaweed 19:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have loads of high quality pics of Brighton and Hove - just need some advice on how to upload them. Ukbn2 16:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You can find out how to upload files by looking at theis page on the user guide [1], but basically you need to click on the "Upload file" link in the toolbox over on the left and follow the instructions. Go easy on the file size! --Seaweed 19:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just realised there is a link to the Flickr for Brighton in the External links section. If you've got loads of photos you want to share with the world (and indirectly through Wikipedia), then maybe upload them there? --Seaweed 19:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a great idea, not least because that way you can share your photos whilst retaining copyright should you wish to. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm, no. That's just misinformed. We shouldn't have any links on Wikipedia to external copyrighted images, except where it is unavoidable and no other image would be possible. Also you retain copyright on all images licensed under GFDL and cc-by-sa, it is just that you also provide a free-use license.

Instead, upload your photos to Wikimedia:Commons (there is a link on the right of the external links section of the article page) and add them to [[Category:Brighton]]. We can upload as many pictures of Brighton as you like there. -- Solipsist 06:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

*blush* Okay, thanks for that. I'd misunderstood the possibilities and had thought you had to basically give up copyright if using a photo on a WP page. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

West Pier

Given the detail regarding the collapses and other stuff I think ther West Pier probably deserves it;s own article (or maybe shared with the Palace Pier). Mintguy (T) 16:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

yeah, i thought that and was planning to anyway at some point. - Xgkkp 18:12, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is actually an article on the West Pier, but it's redirected to Brighton. I think I'll try and set the article up in a minute. --Seaweed 19:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Which I've now done: West Pier, Brighton. --Seaweed 19:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look through this history of this article. At one time there was a lot more info and more pictures of the pier. Jooler 10:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Jooler, are you referring to the history of the Brighton article? I can't see what you mean in the West Pier one. But it's true that there are more photos available. I added one of them recently (the separated West Pier article had none when I first saw it) but didn't add them all since there is relatively little text and (on my wide-ish screen anyway) they'd have dribbled off down the page... not that there's any policy against that! ;) If you'd like to add more pics, what about the other(s) on the Brighton page? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Mods and Rockers

Anybody know if i could fnd any information on the Brighton riots regarding the mods and rockers conflicts?

Brighton's council is one of the greenest in the country with a comprehensive recylcling and waste managment schemes leading to record council tax. the labour mp drives a autogas powered car and the city has a cycle lane network as well as excelent public transport.

In answer to the above 2 comments:

At one point in about 1986 brighton was declared a nuclear free zone - until someone pointed out that the nuclear waste from Dungeness power station passed through the town on a regular basis in the dead of night. havent heard anything about it since - wonder if it still passes through?.

The best (almost contemporary) reference concerning the mods & rockers clashes - not exactly riots - can be found in the encyclopedic work 'Life in Brighton from the Earliest Times to the Present' by Clifford Musgrave 1970. it is expensive to buy but local library will have it. alternatively look at the archives of the 'evening argus' held at brighton library. A spate of conflicts took place first in the late 60's early 70's these are the ones featuring in the film quadrophenia - they were then were nostalgicaly re-introduced in the mid to late 80's partly perhaps due to a contemporary revival of the film and all things mod. :DavidP 14:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Brighton or Brighton & Hove

Some of the content on this page would be better suited to the page about the city Brighton & Hove. for example the history section. there is scope for keeping a brighton page but quite a lot of this content is really pertinent to both of the towns that were merged into a city. I hope to return and sort some of this out. DavidP 14:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The current major developments at the Marina and King Alfred's should be mentioned.Marvin Khan 02:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for modifying and improving the entry on the Marina and King Alfred's.Marvin Khan 21:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries! I currently live in Brighton so it's easy to check up on various details like these. I thoroughly recommend "The Encyclopaedia of Brighton" published by the city library. (By Timothy Carder, from memory.) Kierant 23:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

sorry to be pedantic. but what the hell... the inclusion of the frank ghery development at the king alfreds site isn't relevant to brighton. It's in Hove. DavidP

Absolutely, but the local authority's "local plan", the set of documents which guide planning and development, cover both the Brighton and Hove areas of the city, and in the light of that, the King Alfred stuff is of interest when compared with the marina development (which is in the Brighton part of the city.) And by the way, my apologies for using the "city of Brighton & Hove" as a justification of anything. I hate the city nonsense. Nobody I know in either town wanted it, except Simon Fanshawe. But it's the current reality so it makes sense to refer to Hove issues when describing Brighton ones. Kierant 02:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Revisiting DavidP's point about the Brighton & Hove article, if Seaweed's proposed re-jigging of the Brighton article goes ahead, perhaps people would like to suggest which bits they'd like to see moved over there? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Population

Is the listed population correct for Brighton? It looks more like Brighton and Hove's to me. DTOx 00:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. See the UK census. Kierant 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Music Section

The record labels/bands section is getting rather fancrufty. Most will be only be known to a very small subset of Wikipedia readers. How about a separate article for these? Gsd2000 02:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As the person who recently updated the night-life section (by changing its title to "night-life and popular music" to better reflect its contents), I'd like to chip in and agree with Gsd2000. I chose to edit the very long and unreadable paragraph which contained three lists (please see older versions of page), so I made the bands into a bulleted list. But whilst I was doing it, I was thinking that there were just too many there. However, I wasn't inspired to come up with a replacement "Brighton bands" page. Anybody? ;) Kierant 05:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to create the relevant article, but I've hesitated. All the bands previously listed are either current or very recent. Do we want an article on modern Brighton bands or musical acts over the years generally. Also what really constitutes a "Brighton band". Do you have to come from Brighton or just live there for a while? In fact (scratches head), I can't think of any bands who grew up in Brighton. Aren't The Kooks from Lewes and isn't that Preston guy from The Ordinary Boys from Worthing? And I think Norman Cook is from Reigate... I am admittedly guessing a bit there, but I think you get my point. Sorry for the ramble, but when I think of Liverpool or Machester bands, they all grew up in those cities. So what really makes a 'sound'? People or the place? --Seaweed 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

My question answered! (Sort of) See Category:Music from Brighton, England --Seaweed 19:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

All That Hove Crap

Does anyone under 75 actually see Hove as more desirable? It's God's waiting room and that should be reflected more in the article. From reading the article one would think that Brighton is nasty and scummy whereas Hove is more respectable, this plain isn't true, there are plenty of well-off, or even not so well-off places in Brighton which aren't scummy or worth slandering in favour of the boredom of Hove.

I think that's a bit harsh to describe Hove as "God's waiting room", but I've removed the "Hove, actually" paragraph anyway. It's already included in the Hove article. "Desirable" is certainly POV. --Seaweed 19:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

To report a POV is not in itself a POV. I'm going to reinstate the "Hove actually" para. It's an important part of the culture of Brighton and something everyone in Brighton knows about. And the point is it is "actually" a comment about Brighton as much as Hove. Q:"So you live in Brighton? - A:"No, Hove actually". As for the word "desirable" it is only a POV if the article says it is true. To report that it is viewed by some as more desirable is not POV. See the bottom of [2] (notice that it's the Odeon in Brighton), also note that The Argus use the phrase all the bloody time [3]. Change the wording if you like but don't "lose it". Jooler 15:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think I'm understanding POV a bit better now. --Seaweed 18:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that reporting POV is not POV in itself. On the wider point about the "actually" phrase, it seems like another example of something that really belongs on the Brighton & Hove page... actually. ;) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually said "no, Hove, actually" once when exiled to the wrong side of the Seven Dials. Its well-known, not offensive, and mildly funny. KenBrown 11:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hove actually is more than a brighton & Hove saying - i hear it all over the south east. Actually. [i really should stop this]Ukbn2 12:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've copied the "Hove, actually" thing to the new Trivia section, because...er, I think it's actually quite trivial. :) --Seaweed 19:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

External links - Which ones to include?

Today I've noticed that links to Brightoncore and Brightonwiki have been added by User:86.132.118.73 with the instruction to all Wikipedians of "DONT REMOVE". (I don't think that's really in the spirit of Wikipedia or very polite, but let's not get into that.) Anyway, I remember removing the link to Brightoncore before and I don't want to get into an edit war with User:86.132.118.73.

I've always been a bit troubled by the various entries in the External links section. I can't quite see how some of them are really that important. The Links to normally avoid style guide suggests that any discussion on external links should take place in the talk page.

So, after reading the External links policy, I propose that the only valid external link is for the Brighton article is Brighton & Hove City Council. --Seaweed 16:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Argh, where to put an indented reply, before or after the vote!? ;-) I broadly agree, but I'd favour slightly expanding what's acceptable. Precise definitions are going to be problematic but I think good choices are sites which are clearly long-lived, and contributed to by either a very established organisation or a large group of people — and not sites run by the people who add them, which is usually vanity publishing unless the person happens to be the City Council's webmaster or something like that! Anyway, in this example, I'd suggest we also include "My Brighton & Hove" because it's been going quite a long time and includes content not available anywhere else. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Support. --Seaweed 16:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Prince Regent / George IV link

Hi Seaweed :) I've just noticed that the Royal Pavilion article links the text, "Prince Regent" to the article of that name, by way of an explanation, and then uses the name of George IV to link to his article. Perhaps the Brighton article should do the same to avoid any possible confusion caused by the inconsistency? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the link because I think in the context of Brighton the name "Prince Regent" is taken to mean the same man who later became George IV. I'm just thinking that it's better for someone who doesn't know anything about Brighton to be taken directly to George IV's page. I also think it's a bit more concise. --Seaweed 19:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I feel it's nice to have the definition of the term, as in the Pavilion article. I take your point and would agree were it not for the fact that the name "George IV" comes in the text very shortly after the title "Prince Regent", thus making it very clear that there are two different links available. Perhaps as a compromise we could make the main link on the name (George IV) rather than the title as it presently is? Would you mind? ;) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all... Be bold! --Seaweed 19:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Seaweed :) I've made the change; the nice thing about doing it this way, I've just realised, is that of course the George IV page has links to Prince Regent and English Regency anyway. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

should we have some in depth stuff about prinny and ms fitzherbert? User:Ukbn2

I think the History of Brighton is a better place for detailed information on the impact of George IV and Mrs Fitzherbert on the town. I'm planning to put more information over there, but get stuck in if you like! --Seaweed 19:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Amazing. i can almost see fitzherberts folly from my front door and dont know anything about it/him/her :-))Ukbn2 12:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A nice illustration for that might be a photo of the Catholic chapel on Bristol Road where she worshipped, and I think (from memory) is buried. But it's a bit dull to take on just now ;) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I will get photos when i grabe pics of the pepper pot.Ukbn2 15:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tsunami exhibit images

Exhibit about the 2005 Asian tsunami, in the new public space by Brighton library.

The same exhibit, showing more of the new, energy-efficient library building.

plus i have some great photos of the recent tsunami exhibit. If somebody wants them to upload i am more than happy to send them, i cant upload for some reason.Ukbn2 16:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean those excellent pillars they had up outside the library? That was indeed really stunning. As for the uploading - is there a helpful error message we could analyse for you? ;) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my local shop is right by them. Tesco .LOL. As for uploading i need a detailed help please, i just want to upload a few pics, including the tsunami exhibit.Ukbn2 12:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a couple of these images to Wikimedia Commons. Ukbn2 asked me to link them in somewhere near the mention of the exhibit, so here they are :) I'd suggest one could be copied over to the main article, but perhaps at the same time somebody could write something about the new public library with its interesting energy-efficient building. Indeed we could also mention the fact that the redevelopment of Jubilee Street took 40 years to realise! (In the 1960s, some the adjacent streets didn't even appear on an infamous edition of a local street map, because they were all to be demolished... it was begun with the building of a Tesco (now Komedia theatre) but thankfully never completed.) However, I have no access to any documentary proof of this at the moment so I won't be putting it into the article. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Bit of insider stuff kierant - the once planned Tesco eventually became the "jubilee shopping hall" in gardner street and remained so for 25+ years until the site was renovated in the late 90's. The space where the new library sits [and the wheel clampers from hell] was an NCP car park for over 20 years. Much of the bottom of north road was hideously underdeveloped and delapidated as you will probably remember. The new library was finally opened after a usual Falmer/seagulls style planning disaster, eventually coming to fruition with mostly private funding for the site.

I dont really have much info about the library and find it stunningly boring. Predictably the area around the library, next to the courtyard, houses restaurants that really should be in the lanes and [yes] another Tesco metro. The whole site is privatley owned, and the road connecting north road and church street is one of the few private owned roads in central Brighton.

The Komedia closed about 5 months ago and venturing past it, looks like it will be divided into individual retail outlets again.

Local residents hint at "jubilee 2" just joking. Ukbn2 14:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the Jubilee Shopping Mall was quite enigmatic and always felt like a bit of a ghost ship. Komedia didn't close though, it's the Curve bar (a space Komedia let out on a long lease, which they quickly regretted I understand) which is changing, the theatre's still there and has in fact just opened a new cafe downstairs. Lots of info on their website.

Good lord, spitting distance away and didnt even notice ha. Too busy still giggling at "vegetarian shoes" after 15 yearsUkbn2 18:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the library, I agree, it's a bit of a box, but it deserves a mention for its special energy-efficient design. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

TV links: Sugar Rush

Oh and could somebody create a link or mention for the channel 4 programme "sugar rush"?

Post-war text copied to History of Brighton

Hi Ukbn2. I've copied your new paragraph about post-war developments to the History of Brighton page. I hope you don't mind, but I think it's more useful over there. :) --Seaweed 19:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mate! I have added some ,local info about Trumpton.

Does every year have to be linked?

I've always been inclined to put years in a link, e.g 1545, but when I read this article I realise there are so many being linked it's a bit distracting. I've been reading the Manual of Style on this topic, and one thing it says is "Links should add to the user's experience; they should not detract from it by making the article harder to read." So in that spirit I'm going to remove some of the wikilinks on the dates. Revert if you think I've gone too far! --Seaweed 21:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken to only linking full dates, e.g. ((3 June)), ((2006)) — this way, date preferences should be activated, and the user will see the date formatted the way they've set in their preferences. Obviously, this makes no difference when there's just a year, and as you say, if they're all linked it gets distracting. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

New "Brighton in fiction" and "Brighton in film" articles

In a trimming sort-of mood I've created two new articles: Brighton in fiction and Brighton in film. I've copied all the content from the Brighton article to these new homes. I just thought it would make the Brighton page just a little bit tidier. And maybe it might encourage some more detail in the new pages as well. --Seaweed 22:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made a new category, Category:Films_featuring_Brighton, UK, and it would be great if anybody adding a new film could please add it to the category too. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Brighthelmston or Brighthelmstone

We use both in the article! I always assumed it had the "e" on the end; which is the definitive source for the answer? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Think the bods in Brighthelm have the definitive article - there is a stone inside with a huge description. Will find out when shopping.Ukbn2 18:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I researched this the other day. The answer is over in History of Brighton#Etymology. --Seaweed 22:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Brighton's political history & current make-up

I'm reposting a conversation Ukbn2 and I have been having on my talk page, because it's probably never going to be read by anyone else there, and it seems there's the seed of an idea in it. :) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to schnews. Its no where near the poularity of the greens for instance. Thought about doing an article on Brighton publications/newsletters? Ukbn2 09:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually not into there being too many individual articles about the one town — despite being involved in the cleanup of the main article! ;) In fact, I'd disagree that SchNEWS should be removed. I'm not about to add it back in any form, but specifically because I was once involved in it. The reason I think it should be there is that it has been a major part of the direct action political movement in the UK (and has international contacts too) and (here comes the point) it's pretty hard to imagine that it could have evolved or had the success it did in any other town than Brighton. – KieranT 11:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Got to agree there - there needs to be something about the not-mainstream politics. I'm going to put it in but with something like 'for example'. Daview 18:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Brighton does love it's leaflets. look at Kensington Gardens on Saturdays:-)) I disagree with the success of direct action, though thats a different issue. I think if schnews is on there then so should the leader, which is read by about 100,000 more people. Put schnews back in Kierant, its virtual squatting so im all for that :-))Ukbn2 12:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

(Indentations and date-ordering added for clarity – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

Looks like Daview beat us to it! :) The success of direct action is definitely a different issue, you're quite right, but I think it's an amazing social movement whatever its impact.

As for the Leader (which for some reason never gets delivered to my house, grumble grumble), it's always seemed to me that it's effectively just a free weekly "Argus" with the most interesting local stories of the week, and the Argus is already linked in the article. If we do mention the Leader, we could end up with a very boring list of publications; Latest/Latest Homes, Insight, Juice, etc. etc. ad nauseam. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community

I've cut all of the "Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transexual community" section to its own new article: Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community of Brighton and Hove. I've done this to aid with the clarity of this article. I think there was too much on this page and more than enough to demand its own page, where it can develop more. I've added a link in the Brighton#See also section. I would imagine future information on a possible "Population" section would provide general information. --Seaweed 18:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Following the discussion further down this page, regarding the addition of "gay capital of Britain", I've moved the link into "culture"; hopefully this will in no way preclude a future "population" section :) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Brighton today

I'm sorry I can't help it anymore. I've got to speak about the Brighton today section. I think it's terrible! I think there is quite a lot of useful information contained within it, but all really all in the wrong place. We need new, boring sort of sections on population, education, economy and so on. Lately I've been inclined to chop things about, but I'm hesitating because the section provides no easy solutions. Anyway, I thought should speak out and ask everyone's opinions before jumping into the breach. (I'm trying to be really careful not to edit this Brighton page too much!) :) --Seaweed 19:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I realised I'd duplicated a bit of it earlier, when adding the Brighton Festival to the Culture section. So I took the opportunity to snip it out of Brighton Today. There is much more of this to be done; other town articles have an Education section, for one obvious example. Don't see any reason not to carry on. I'll do the education bit if you like. But you "be bold" too! Sterling work you're doing, Seaweed ;) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just got quite into this; I've tried breaking it up into Commerce (the section on the Lanes became this); Politics; and a sub-section for Culture, The beaches. I think there's a bit too much history in Commerce, thanks to the North Laine, but maybe it's best left there, for context. The beaches section certainly needed expansion. I've also tried to expand a bit beyond retail in the commerce section, but even so, this is fairly low-quality content. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hurrah! Good work Kieran - the Brighton Today section is no more! But you're right there is still a lot of work to do. --Seaweed 23:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Transport of Brighton

I've created an new article called Transport in Brighton. I've copied all of the content of the Transport section to the new article. I'm now going to trim down the content of the Transport section. I've done this because I think it will help with clarity of the Brighton article and also hopefully encourage further development of information of transport in Brighton. --Seaweed 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Anybody get the impression that the article is becoming a portal?Ukbn2 12:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

This talk page has acquired an "article is over x kB long..." warning. I think it's time we started archiving older, stagnant discussions. (About archiving, and see an example of talk page archiving here.) If nobody objects over the next few days (five is recommended for such suggestions) then I'll make a start. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Origin of terms

Hi,small point , the term "London-by-sea" originated from London gangster folklore. A place where "wrong uns" could abscond from the met etcUkbn2

You know, the phrase "London-by-the-Sea" has always troubled me. I've read loads of times that people refer to Brighton with that description in books, leaflets, websites, whereever you like. And yet I've never heard anyone actually say it. I suppose it must have been referred at some time in the past, but not now. It's one of those things that sounds good, but I'm not sure it's actually true. Or is it me? --Seaweed 21:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I think it's you ;-) I've heard it called that. I've even used the phrase myself. But we need a proper source and I take your point that reading that people say it is not the same as reading people saying it. I support removing it (but not strongly enough to do so!) until we have a verifiable source, as per Wikipedia guidelines. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link http://www.victoriana.com/Travel/brighton.htm However it's interpreted now, I understand it originally referred to the fashionable Georgian set who visited Brighton. One source described it as 'like Piccadilly come down to the sea'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.144.75 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 22 July 2006

Thanks for the link; that's an endearing site. However – and at the risk of seeming pedantic – I'm not sure that the opinion of a single unofficial website (which doesn't cite its source) really meets Wikipedia verifiability standards. (See WP:VERIFY and WP:EL.) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Presumption of homophobia: harsh or obvious?

I've just made a revert and given the edit summary as "revert (vandalism)" for something which may not have been vandalism. An anonymous user had added "It is sometimes known as 'the gay capital of the UK'.". The thing that's troubling me is that this is actually true. I've heard it called that, often after I've told taxi drivers that I'm going to get a train to Brighton! But saying it here, and so bluntly, seems out of place and likely to cause offence. I'd be a lot less suspiscious if it came from a logged-in user. What do people think — was I right to revert this? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Brighton is certainly known for it's large gay community (including gay pride events etc) and this should be mentioned within the article in some way, currently the only reference to homosexuality is in the see also section. -- Joolz 22:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's come about quite recently because of the clean-up operation that's going on. "Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community of Brighton and Hove" is now a separate article, but so are many other important aspects of Brighton. But I agree that perhaps it's not obvious enough down in "See also". It might be better in "Culture" for example. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have heard It reffered to often as the gay capital of Britain, for many years (keirant), by gay men from Brighton and further afield (even dallas and L.A) - It is usually said with a sense of pride, especially during 'pride' week. It is very thoughtful of you to consider the feelings of those who might be offended, but I think that the only ones likely to be so, are the minority of homophobes that may wander in here - and i feel certain that they would use a far more derogatory term (even if only under their breath). please revert the Gay Capital, I for one, as a long term resident, am proud of it being so. DavidP

Okay then, I'm taking the opportunity to put the link to the separate article in "culture" and mention the nick-name at the same time. To David, I think my problem (which may have been a bit knee-jerk) was not so much imagining that the term would offend gay people, but my feeling that it was perhaps added to the page with mischievous intentions; it resembles so many other graffitti edits. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Boho index

added the infamous BoHo index figures - just for fun. but fully verifiable - second thoughts perhaps I should put it on the Brighton & Hove page where most of this stuff belongs. DavidP

The trouble is indeed knowing where to put it — it's currently under "commerce" but includes "sexual diversity", which is clearly wrong, unless we're discussing the menu at saunas! ;) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've now renamed the "Trivia" section as "Miscellanea" (to avoid denegrating things by calling them trivial!) and moved the BoHo stuff in there. I've also moved the external link out of the body text and converted it to a reference. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kieran DavidP 12:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Doh! And I spelt Miscellanea wrongly over there. Thanks to User:A bit iffy for fixing it! :) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Naughty Brighton

Anybody have reference to brightons "dirty weekend" image etc i know a film was made about it,wondered if its worth a mention, not in the film bit, but in trivia perhaps?

Brighton article revisited

I'm copying over a conversation from my talk page: – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Saw this bit Kieran in your Brighton article: "In many ways, Brighton's postwar position has been a continuation of the 'fashionable Brighton'"

I would say from a building point of view, postwar Brighton has done all it can to build monstrous carbuncles up until recentley. eg whitehawk,tarnerland,the knoll [hove yes] ,coldean,hollingdean [the top flats],bevendean the scoomb Ukbn2 16:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with statements like that is that when the article gets edited over time, they end up referring to the wrong bits of text. And sometimes its very hard to track back and see who added what, when, and what was meant.

I expect you're attributing it to me because I recently edited that section. (I'm not saying I didn't originally write it — I honestly don't recall!) However, the problem was that the previous user had left a single line-feed (not a blank line) after their edit, making the two paragraphs appear as one. When I edited, I simply didn't correct this.

Certainly I wouldn't dream of calling any of those estates "fashionable architecture" — they're all pretty bleakly functional. And that's coming from someone who likes a lot of 1960s and 1970s stuff.

I think the solution here is to move that sentence to a new paragraph. I'll have a fiddle with it shortly. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The quality of this article

I've just read through the whole Brighton article. I then read the Liverpool article for comparison. I've also just read The perfect article for guidance and inspiration. I've also been thinking about the number of contributors to the article.

I've tried putting myself in the place of a person from, say, Worthing, South Dakota whose never heard of Brighton, England. After reading the article has she been provided with enough encyclopedic information to understand the subject properly? In terms of Wikipedia polices does the article have a neutral point of view? Have we avoided peacock and weasel terms?

I think most of the article does achieve those things. It certainly cites its sources better than the Liverpool article. But I still feel there is something wrong.

I think one of the biggest problems is the number of contributors, their age, gender and perception of Brighton. I know I'm taking a risk saying that. I think I'm part of the problem as well. I'm a 32 year old male who has grown up, been to school and worked in Brighton (although really from Hove). My own bias comes out in my own edits. Its inevitable that I end up editing on subjects like music or nightlife that match my lifestyle or the local history aspect that interests me.

As far as I can see the only major contrubutors to this article (in recent times), include Kierant, A bit iffy, Ukbn2 and me. The rest of the edits are made often of just bits of unecessary "External links" edits (apart from grammar and spelling edits).

Going back to the hyperthetical Wikipedian from Wothing, South Dakota. Are we really providing her with the full story?

So how am I going to be part of the solution? Firstly I'm going to try harder to make better, more wide-ranging contributions. Secondly I'm going to encourage more people to make meaningful contributions to this article, especially people with different ages and backgrounds. Thirdly I'm going to continue to defend the article from the strange, insidious erosion that seems to occur.

For me the most compelling Wikipedia advice is to "Believe in your subject. Let the facts speak for themselves." --Seaweed 21:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Apologies for disappearing for a while.)

strange, insidious erosion — that'll be the pebbles on the beach ;-)

Welcome back! – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)