Talk:Brighton and Hove

message: I will be adding a new "Downland and surrounding area" section and a note on the unique Liz Williams Butterfly haven.
At the same time I suggest that the page needs a bit of a clean up. 
Many of the sections should be subsections of another section.
I propose:
* the Letter's patent section be a subsection in the History section (or deleted completely)
* the Wards' section be a subsection of Governance
* the new "Downland and surrounding area" area that I will be creating be put in Geography (possibly renamed)
* the Census section be a subsection of Economy and demography (possibly, but probably not, itself a subsection of Geography?)
Paolo Oprandi (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for change and an additional section

message: I suddenly realised that this article has spelt the name of the city wrongly throughout. the City was named Brighton & Hove when it gained city status, so should be refered to as such. however when the old administrative areas of Brighton and Hove are refered to it is ok to omit the ampersand. 
I have also added a line to mention that this naming is unique in as much as it contains an ampersand. sharing the distinction with westward ho! that also has a non alphabetic character in its name.
I will also make a duplicate of the page renamed Brighton & Hove so that links from other pages can be corrected. I hope that this is the correct way of going about it. DavidP 02:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  &, not and 

message: attempted at length to change or add the category heading to also read Brighton & Hove rather than Brighton and Hove.
it got the better of me - can anyone help to either correct the spelling of the category or add a new one... thanks DavidP 12:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  categories? 

message: The name of the city is 'Brighton and Hove' i.e. without the ampersand. This is the official name of the city. It appears in this way on the letters patent signed by the Queen in January 2001. There is also large road-sign on the A27 at the city boundary, welcoming people to 'Brighton and Hove'.
One may also wish to consult the Statutory Instrument 2001 No. 4055, The City of Brighton and Hove (Electoral Changes) Order 2001 , where the city designation is shown as 'Brighton and Hove' fourteen times. Of particular note is section 1.(3) of the Order, which states:- 'In this Order - "city" means the city of Brighton and Hove'.(See )
Similarly, the constitution of the council, adopted on 25th April 2002, says:
"Article 1 of the constitution commits the Council to exercising all its powers
and duties in accordance with the law and this constitution in pursuit of the
Council’s vision which is:
“The Council wants Brighton and Hove to be a
cosmopolitan, successful city by the sea, where people
have a high quality of life in a decent environment.”
So the Queen, in legal documentation, calls it Brighton and Hove, an Act of Parliament calls it Brighton and Hove, and the council, by its constitution , clearly accepts and refers to the city as 'Brighton and Hove'. 
However, the ampersand is often used. Even so, the ampersand is only a symbol, an abbreviation used to represent the word 'and' (latin et). Therefore, in summary, the 'official' name of the town uses three full words, not two words and a symbol. But there is also no objection to the use of the abbreviated form. --Observer29 (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very happy to read this clear explanation. The name of this article continues to strike me as unjustifiable. (Just because there's no official objection stated to using an abbreviation, doesn't mean we should use it. Countless articles on Wikipedia use the full name for entities which are often referred to with abbreviations. If the entity has an official name, that's the name to use.) In the light of how clearly Observer29 has outlined the case for "Brighton and Hove" being the correct name for the city, I once again propose renaming the article to match. – Kieran T (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'official' name of the City 

message: I wonder why this article is still stubbed? There seems a fair amount here now, and some of what might be added could more properly be put in the separate articles on the towns themselves, surely? I've de-stubbed, although I expect to be taken to task with all the things that could be put in!!! But do we not have enough stubs as it is? Peter Shearan 10:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub?

message: Does this division into four areas makes sense?  I am in particular concerned by the fact that Rottingdean is an area in itself, but that Saltdean is part of the Brighton area.  Looking at a map, it might make sense to divide all the deans off, but hiving just Rottingdean off (persumably because it has a parish council) seems odd. Morwen - Talk 15:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder why Rottingdean is mentioned in the article, and Saltdean is not. I think this ought to be improved soon. --Hodsha (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Division into areas

message: Brighton & Hove ranks top in the Jedi census statistics, according to the 2001 census. Of course, this is more of a fun fact, but maybe someone cares to incorporate it into the article. Subversive element 16:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I wonder why nobody has done it before, or whether it has always been commented out. Wikipeditor 09:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been done before: diff Wikipeditor 09:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jedi census statistics 

message: I hhave added a lot of info on this page to make it useful (so you dont have to look at the Brighton "and" hove articles)Blackwave...... (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Blackwave (actually User:Kentem). I've undone this entire change. Whilst one the one hand it's a fair point that the city includes the features of both towns, it's not a good idea to duplicate content on Wikipedia because it gets out of synch and is harder to keep correct. Therefore if the case were made to have all the info here, the other articles should become redirects. But that would never fly since the two towns have very distinct histories up until the (not uncontroversial) merger. – Kieran T (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info 

message: The main article says that "Brighton and Hove" was awarded city status 'by letters patent in 2000,' but the 'letters patent' in this case was actually signed by Queen Elizabeth II on January 31st 2001 ! 
This matter should be re-worded to remove the inaccuracy. --Observer29 (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000 or 2001? When were 'city status' letters patent granted? 

message: In 2000 it was announced that four British towns would be elevated to city status by the Monarch, i.e. Inverness, Wolverhampton, Brighton and Hove. Inverness became a city, Wolverhampton became a city, and the unitary authority of the two towns/districts of Brighton anf Hove would become one city, namely 'Brigton and Hove City' (also known as the city of Brighton and Hove). So, in what sense was Brighton and Hove 'the joint winner' of the competition?
--Observer29 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  City status 'Joint winner'? 

message: I was browsing this page at about half of a screen vertically and realised that the top information box appears incorrectly and covers the text. Checked it didn't happen with other pages but it is a trait which I could only find in this one. I assume it is a bug but don't know how to fix it. Help would be much appreciated. 
2/11/08 16:40 UK. User: Pingaware  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.159.201 (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does not appear correctly in small window 

message: I wonder if anyone has a view on the image of the map that shows where Brighton & Hove is in relation to England? It just seems odd that the zoom takes in a large section of the south coast to the west of Hove and almost nothing to the north and east. Gavinayling (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Brighton & Hove 

message: I've been scratching my head about this article. Is it about "Brighton and Hove" as a form of local goverment or "Brighton and Hove" as a city? This occurred to me when I discovered that there isn't an article called "Brighton & Hove City Council". By comparing this article to other sort-of similar unitary authorities (e.g. Redcar & Cleveland or Windsor and Maidenhead) it would appear that the Wikipedia convention is not to include the "unitary authority" in the title. Anyway, it looks like this article should primarily be about "Brighton and Hove" as a unitary authority. There is already loads of information on Brighton and Hove already. I'm going to tidy this article to remove some of the content which is essentially duplicated in Brighton and also (if I can) add more information about the actual council functions and activities. Seaweed (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refocus this article as a unitary authority 

message: 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) 21:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[m:Meetup/Brighton/1|First ever Brighton Wiki Meetup]]

message: I think it's about time we really pulled together the Brighton and Hove articles into one big article here at Brighton and Hove. Having two separate articles is really redundant, as it is more than ever a unified city now. I think we should reflect this. StJaBe (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Brighton and Hove are two separate towns, but a city when put together. They each have their own town centres. Brighton and Hove is a unitary authority which not only includes Brighton and Hove, but a number of other smaller villages. I think they should be kept separate. EverythingGeography (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

text: We should try not to think only in the present. They're unified now, but have distinct histories. There's plenty of information that would probably make a single merged article too long (for WP guidelines) anyway. – Kieran T (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is a tricky one - the current setup I feel is wrong as when looking through the Brighton article most of the information (sport, education, politics etc) is applicable to both Brighton and Hove and it seems rather futile going through the Brighton article and removing every reference to Hove in order to place it on a seperate "Hove" article, while equally futile duplicating the information onto both pages. Although I haven't found any precedent for this, my suggestion would be a sort of merge - move most of the information to "Brighton and Hove" and structure it like a standard city article (take similarly sized city Newcastle as an example perhaps), while leaving the seperate "Brighton" and "Hove" pages as minor articles detailing local history and geographical boundries of the areas. Thoughts? - TheLeftGloveTalk To Me 10:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

text: I have now removed the merge notice from the Hove article because there has been no progress in reaching a consensus for over two years.--A bit iffy (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: Brighton and Hove may form one city, but they are two towns with a totally distinct feel as far as visitors are concerned.
To my mind, they should keep there own unique identity on here.  Amalgamating the pages would loose the opportunity for the individual nuances of the two places...  You may as well argue that everywhere in England should be considered as one. But then why not include Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and just have a single entry for Great Britain?  Ludicrous, of course!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borninthe40s (talk • contribs) 10:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  One City, Two Towns! 

message: The information in the economy section was poorly explained, had only one reference (which was a broken link), and was all at least 11 years out of date.  I have removed this information, but hope to see a better conceived economy section emerge at some point to replace it.  If this doesn't happen within the next few weeks, I hope to be able to contribute something myself. EdwardRussell (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: The box on the right seems to imply that British Summer Time is not used in Brighton.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.105.231 (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summer 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Brighton and Hove. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c1211435
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009035006/http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk:80/index.cfm?request=c1165353 to http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c1165353
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Brighton and Hove. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c1211435
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009035006/http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c1165353 to http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c1165353
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I question the significance of the 'City Council' subsection on 'DVLA ban'. 1) it seems to be a reasonably small fact on the landscape of a city's history and 2) the referenced article mentions that "38 organisations" have received such a ban, but names none, and Brighton and Hove is mentioned nowhere in the article. The section was inserted in a 2012 revision by a user who is now banned. Artemgy (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVLA ban insignificant? 

message: 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. Glman83 (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Glman83, that does sound like a good idea, but what are the three other pages that you talk of? Paolo Oprandi (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  One page 

message: I have edited references to the political control of the council, which were out of date on this page (but not on the separate Brighton & Hove City Council page).
But I don't know how to fix the reference to the English district control template in the infobox. It is still showing as NOC (Labour administration). Presumably this data is out of date in the template (or wherever the template draws from) but I don't know where to find that. --BrightonParent (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political control 

message: The city has a range of beaches and marine environments from Shoreham port and the wharves in Portslade, Hove Lagoon, the Western Esplanade, Kings Esplanade and Kings, Hove and Brunswick Lawns to the West and Palace Pier, to Madeira Drive, Black Rock and the Brighton Marina and then to the rock pooling beaches in front of the Brighton to Saltdean Undercliff Path. If someone fancies writing a short account of them (500 words or so) I think it will be a welcome addition to the page. If we can get an idea of the marine life the areas support that will also be of interest. Paolo Oprandi (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't help thinking that is the sort of thing that shoud be in the relevant district articles. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that it should be as well and in more detail, but in the overview of the City an account of the coastline offers a different significance and gives context (and comparison) to the areas. To the west of Portslade is an industrial lagoon port linked to Shoreham. In Rottingdean it is rockpools. In between there are pebbles and a marina. All have different qualities, are linked in different ways and provide the City with different opportunities and challenges. Paolo Oprandi (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for an account of the beaches

message: Brighton and Hove was two neighbouring Towns that joined together to became a unitary authority.  In 2000 gained City status so Brighton and Hove became one City. I feel unitary authority should be removed. 2A02:C7F:A017:B100:6CA0:539B:7A5:C433 (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still a unitary authority. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unitary authority 

message: Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to just have this one page for Brighton and Hove ? Anything that’s not on here can be added, rather than 3 separate ones 2A02:C7F:A017:B100:F02E:8F2A:F247:43C (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this would not be appropriate because both places have long independent histories prior to the merger in 1997.  Compare, as a similar example, Minneapolis–Saint Paul and the separate articles for Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Minnesota.  Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 17:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 page 

message: A discussion has begun on developing a writing guideline for how and when to record award of city status. You may wish to contribute at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#What makes a city? Contributions from editors who were involved in updating the award to B&H are particularly welcome. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of discussion: how and when to record award of city status 

message: Do we need two maps in this section, more or less showing the same thing? The second diagram is very pretty but it adds nothing to the article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Murgatroyd49 The surrounding hills which make up this are of the SDNP are not well known, either in terms of their names, history or their ability to support biodiversity. Losing such public knowledge reduces the extent to which the SDNP can be enjoyed and valued by the people of Brighton. The map is intended to do a little to remedy this situation. We are the only city nestled in the South Downs and therefore special in that way. The map gives a visual representation of the surrounding hills and compares them longitudinally with the areas of Brighton, costal areas and other landmarks.  Riparia Riparia (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The top map does but what does the bottom diagram add? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: When walking the South Downs I often refer to the map to know which hill I am on. I find it more accessible than the other map which also has value. In any case, as I added the map, needless to say I like it and find it useful ---- Riparia Riparia (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That I understand but my question is still, why have both? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, they are both useful and removing one will not improve the page so why do it? Riparia Riparia (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why duplicate the information? I doubt many people would seriously use them in the field. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it is useful for me (seriously!), but I am not arguing it should be kept there solely for my sake - I hope it is useful for other people too (literally in the field). The image doesn't take away from the usability of the page - the page is already long - and, as you say above, it is "pretty" and Wikipedia can't be too visual attractive. Afterall, our pages can suffer from being wordy. ---- Riparia Riparia (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Areas 

message: I thought we could add an external link to the Brighton Permaculture Trust website as they improving the quality of the Brighton environment. Can I have further thoughts on the matter? Riparia Riparia (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brighton Permaculture Trust