Talk:Brighton/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tidy up: History 

message: I cannot edit becauswe I cannot write well english, so I write it here: There is a mistake in the transport section of this article: Volk's Electric Railway (VR) was never running to Rottingdean. First from The Palace Peer to Kemp Town, then from PP to KT and Black Rock. After building from the Marina a new Blac Rock Station was built some yards befor the old one. About 1900 runs for a short time from Kemp Town (VR) to Rottingdean via Ovingdean Volk's Electric Seahorse, familary called "Daddy long leg". This was an electric train with the railtrack into the sea (between marina and Rottingdean you can still see some concret parts at low tides). TheCoach was on a platform on long legs. This train was stopped bevor world war one for economocal reasons and technical reasons: the waves moved to much the track unter water. If someone can chage this error in approriated English, this would be fine. It seems that I have some technincal informations including historical photographs somewhere. But do not ask me where they are in my library. Etienne
: I've modified the entry on the extant Volks railway, separated out a paragraph on the daddy-long legs, and added an external link to the official site of the railway. Kierant 16:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transport 

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

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

message: :...and has long been rumoured to be the first British city with a respectable chance of electing a Green MP
Do we have a source for these rumors, if not can we remove the statement. Edward 09:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a vaguely valid comment, but I think it should be removed. Encyclopaedias shouldn't speculate about future events. Mintguy (T) 09:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: It stems from the fact that the Brighton Pavilion (constituency) has the Green Party's strongest vote (about 3,000) -- Joolz 23:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 3rd place beating the Liberal Democrats with 9,571 votes and 22.0% of the vote in 2005, byt far the best Green result. Jooler 07:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green MP 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mods and Rockers 

message: Alright. Some people seem to be determined to keep links in the "External links" that in my opinion are not covered by WP:EL. I am not going into a revert war over this, but for the record, here are some of the links that I believe should be removed:
*www.brightonaccommodation.com/ Brighton Accommodation
*www.tastebrighton.com/index.php/ TasteBrighton.com — Restaurant Guide with Online Menus   
*www.brighton.ishere.co.uk/ Brighton Portal    
*www.brighton-eating.com/ Brighton Restaurant Guide
Please compare articles like out New York City or San Francisco and note how they don't have links to restaurant or accomodation guides.
Rl 13:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Hello,
sorry if my English is not correct, I'm from nl.wiki.
I have seen that you reverted my external link and qualified it as spam. It was not ment to be so. I was just enthousiast, because my daughter and her friend have been there and came back with enthousiastic stories and lots of pictures. They are both motorfreaks. Kind regards --Algont 14:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the link to the brighton burn up page - Gsd called it linkspam - but I disagree, the brighton burn up or at least the institution of a brighton run from the Ace Cafe has been well known by the motorcycling fraternity since the 1950's Its re-instigation with the re-opening of the Ace Cafe is as relevant as the veteran car run, a similar institution. It could also be argued that the mod V rockers confrontations of the 1960's were due to mods responding to the presence of rockers because of this event. DavidP 01:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be better placed under London to Brighton events. Better still if was expanded with some discussion on the Burn Up there. -- Solipsist 08:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you DavidP, you make my day! Good night, --Algont 00:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree its proper resting home is London to Brighton events Gsd2000 00:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy of my discussion on User talk:Gsd2000 (he doesn't respond yet) 

message: Is the listed population correct for Brighton? It looks more like Brighton and Hove's to me. DTOx 00:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. See the UK census. Kierant 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Music Section 

message: The second link on the right hand side is for Brighton ski resort in the States, not England's Brighton.
None of the links at the botton of the left hand column are clickable (with Firefox on XP). Is this by design?
One of these links appears as !brighton.virtualmuseum.info. The exclamation mark needs removing. In addition the descriptive text for the last link (terramedia.co.uk) descends into gobblydegook.
Otherwise a very good and informative page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.8.147 (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning the "Brighton ski resort" link, I'm not quite sure what you mean. I can't find the incorrect link. --Seaweed 21:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm using Firefox and the links on the left hand side work OK. I also can't find the link to "!brighton" you mention --Seaweed 21:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Likewise — I can't identify these problems. There is a link to www.brighton.virtualmuseum.info, but without the exclamation mark. Perhaps the person seeing the problem (presumably, from this page's history, a user at 212.42.8.147) would post a link to screenshot somewhere (e.g. Photobucket), since it might be interesting to try to find what could cause such corruption/weirdness on a Wikipedia page. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 21:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  (notice that it's the Odeon in Brighton), also note that The Argus use the phrase all the bloody time . Change the wording if you like but don't "lose it". Jooler 15:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I think I'm understanding POV a bit better now. --Seaweed 18:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: All That Hove Crap

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External links - Which ones to include? 

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Prince Regent / George IV link

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Tsunami exhibit images

message: 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)
thread_title:  Post-war text copied to History of Brighton 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Does every year have to be linked? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New "Brighton in fiction" and "Brighton in film" articles 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Brighton today 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Transport of Brighton 

message: 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)
thread_title: Talk page archiving

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:   Boho index