Talk:Brighton Pier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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:
This article is part of WikiProject Piers, which is an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to piers. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.


[edit] Theatre

It'd be nice to have a date for the removal of the theatre mentioned in the first paragraph. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 23:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And now we do, thanks to the recently added http://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/Brighton/PalacePier.htm — 1986. – Kieran T (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct Name

There are objections to Brighton Pier being the official name in favor of Palace Pier. Should the pier be moved to the new name or will a redirect do? Is the name the Brighton Marine Palace and Pier the correct Official name? --Paul E. Ester 16:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Should the pier be moved to the new name or will a redirect do?" – I'd say a redirect will do. The article is the place to go into the details, and chopping and changing the article name isn't the way to do it, unless we're absolutely certain of the correct name. And as you say, "there are objections"; or in other words, it's controversial.
Incidentally, a redirect is of low value unless you think people will actually add in "Palace Pier" to the end of a Wikipedia URL. If they search for it in the normal way, they'll get to the article. Then again, a redirect doesn't exactly consume a lot of resources.
To the best of the knowledge of the reference books I have, that long name ("The Brighton Marine Palace and Pier") is the original name, but that does not make it "official". The National Piers Society may not recognise the new name, but they don't own the pier. The owners have the right to call it whatever they like. Please note, I'm not sticking up for a commercial body for any biased reasons. In fact, I'm personally no fan at all of the Noble Organisation, and would rather lend my personal support to the NPS, and I always call it the "Palace Pier" myself, having been in Brighton on and off for some years. But that's utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia where we merely reflect facts. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 16:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly is the main article on this named "Brighton Pier" when the official name is the "Palace Pier"?? The owners only rebranded the pier "Brighton Pier" because they wanted to be the 'only' pier when traditionally the West Pier was the 'Brighton' Pier. The main article should be under "Palace Pier" since that's what its official name is according to the National Piers Society. "Brighton Pier" is a marketing term. The page for "Brighton Pier" should be a list basically saying that "Brighton Pier" is a term given to any pier in Brighton and should then list links to the Palace Pier, the West Pier and that other one from ages ago.Spanky Deluxe 09:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:UCN says to use "the most common name". I personally still call it the Palace Pier, but if "Brighton Pier" has become the most commonly-used name, and the one that people will tend to type in or link to, then it should stay as that. --McGeddon 09:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The most common name can't include "what we think people call it" since that'd be original research — so we need to go with reliable sources. The Argus, being the most obvious one, goes with the corporate name, Brighton Pier. So do the owners' websites. So no matter how much weight we give the National Piers Society, they are, in terms of reliable sources, outnumbered. Please refer back to the point about what constitutes "official"? And just for edification, "that other one from ages ago" was "The Royal Suspension Chain Pier". ;) – Kieran T (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, most Brightonians consider it being called the "Brighton Pier" an insult - especially due to the Pier's bad reputation amongst many locals. This is why I suggest using this page as a page where the individual piers could be chosen - that way anyone searching for "Brighton Pier" will be able to find it, it will be under its proper name and the name that is "the most common name" for anyone living in the area. (Comment lost by Kieran T's edit)

I'd propose something like this here:

Brighton Pier may refer to:

The term "Brighton Pier" is too general a term to only direct to one of them. There were three and the term "Brighton Pier" can refer to any of them. Palace Pier can only refer to this one specifically, the same goes for the rest.Spanky Deluxe 10:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Spanky - sorry about the loss of your edit - there was obviously an edit conflict and the warning system must be broken as I didn't get one. It's happened again because your last edit has not incorporated my edit which carried an apology! Anyway, moving on... I don't object to the principle of a disambiguation page, but it should certainly not add to the confusion by using the name of one of the piers, i.e. Brighton Pier. If we're going to do it, it should be Brighton Pier (disambiguation). – Kieran T (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha, no worries Kieran. :) I agree, a Brighton Pier (disambiguation) page is exactly what I think is needed and would be the fairest way of dealing with naming issues. I know a lot of local Brightonians that insist the 'Brighton Pier' is the West Pier for example. At the end of the day, all of these piers are "Brighton Piers".Spanky Deluxe 10:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal for a disambiguation page per Spanky. DuncanHill 11:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)