Talk:Transport in Brighton and Hove

message: I've created this article to help with the clarity of the Brighton article. I copied all of the content from the Transport section of the Brighton article. I did this because I though there was too much information in the Brighton article and enough to demand an article on Brighton transport in its own right. It will also hopefully help in expanding this topic further. --Seaweed 19:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't this be better served as Transport in Brighton & Hove rather than just Brighton? Then it would cover the whole of the local authority rather than just a part, since the buses cover the whole area, as do the trains. -- Joolz 14:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My emotional response is "No! Not more creeping acceptance of the conjoined 'City'!" — which nobody I know wanted, nor likes. But that's not relevant on Wikipedia where we're supposed to describe reality, not define it, so I have to support your suggestion. The history of the trains is reasonably different and specific, but the present-day info, and especially the buses and taxis, not to mention car-issues, are so integrated now that it does seem a bit silly to narrow the article. Can't quite bring myself to be bold and be the one to rename it though ;) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 14:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do have to agree with you on the dislike for the name (I think we should pretend Hove doesn't exist ;) but since it does exist this should be reflected - I think you're right about the trains being less integrated but even so there's good reason for the whole of district's transport infastructure, which is virtually all intergrated to be in the same article. I'll rename it soon unless anyone has any objections -- Joolz 15:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joolz, I agree: rename to Transport in Brighton & Hove (or maybe Transport in Brighton and Hove, but I prefer the ampersand). Funnily enough, I only came to this talk page to suggest this and I find other people have the same thought. I can't think of any form of transport in the city that is confined to just Brighton, and of course we have the large number of buses and taxis with "Brighton & Hove" printed on them. Anyway, nobody has objected so far, so if nobody objects in the next week or so, I'll be bold and do the page move. --A bit iffy 09:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly support Transport in Brighton and Hove only and not the ampersand. Partly out of technical paranoia/caution (delete as you will) and partly because I'm persuaded of the legal argument that "and" is the correct form in the name, as given Royal assent. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 22:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support from me as well (with an "and") --Seaweed 11:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now moved. (*#@%!!! Why oh why did I mention the ampersand!). I've rewritten the introductory paragraph, but it's apparent that more rewriting is necessary. I don't have the time at the moment to attend to this. --A bit iffy 06:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why create this article? 

message: I am sure it was called "Hartington Road Halt" for all of its brief existence.  I can't remember the printed sources I have seen on this subject, but Subterranea Britannica and this page (which looks useful for additional reference info) support this.  Anyway, I have changed the name accordingly.
As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Brighton, I hope to expand on this page in various ways:
* Some photos, particularly of stations
* Probably a bit about the buses
* The tuk-tuks/auto-rickshaws
* A bit on the trams - I have a well-researched book on the subject (can't remember the title)
Unfortunately, this might not be for a while, given other commitments!  --Hassocks5489 13:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite happy to believe this change is correct, but based on your certainty and not the Sub Brit spelling as the source. I don't mean to run down Sub Brit, which is an excellent resource compiled by some amazing people, but my worry comes because I think they're wrong on Kemp Town rather than Kemptown. In these kind of web articles it's entirely possible the writer has just used the spelling they're familiar with rather than checking. Kemptown Station might have been Kemp Town Station, but it's not in Kemp Town, it's in Kemptown; and other sources including the local newspaper contradict Sub Brit's spelling, so I'd like to see that checked, as I mentioned a while ago in Talk:Kemptown railway station. We need an LB&SCR or a BR publication, really. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 13:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Kieran; yes, I agree regarding SubBrit, having browsed it extensively in the past and spotted a few errors (probably fewer than on an average website, but still a fair number given the sheer size of it).  I think the definitive source is the book "Brighton to Eastbourne" from Middleton Press, which I have read many times in the past but don't have a copy of.  Several people I know through my rail ticket interests may well have contemporary LBSCR or BR info which could confirm - I'll make enquiries.  --Hassocks5489 14:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hartington Road Halt 

message: First, many thanks to Briantist for the extensive enhancements to the article this evening. However, as regards the Rapid Transport System, my interpretation is that it's not a 100% certainty. Although the council has approved it, the final sentence in the Argus speaks volumes: "Talks with the Department for Transport are ongoing to secure funding." There's an election coming up, and the whole scheme feels like a transport equivalent of "vaporware".--A bit iffy 22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. (Nothing more productive to add to what's been said above ;-) – Kieran T (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the NPOV on it then?  Also the referred council document calls it the Rapid Transport System, I can't see any justification for changing the description.   BRIANTIST  (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the project has been funded and will start by next Spring.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/our_work/advocacy/rfa/rfa_transport-111105.pdf Regional Funding Allocation
South East England]:
"Intervention: Brighton and Hove Bus Rapid Transit System Status: Regional Priority Regional Funding Allocation: £20.00m Start Date:2008"  BRIANTIST  (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rapid Transport System

message: :Image:Brighton city transport website layout.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Brighton city transport website layout.png