Talk:Brighton and Hove

Proposal for change and an additional section

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)

&, not and

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)

• David, I've noticed you've changed the "In other languages" links to correctly use the "&" instead of "and". Unfortunately, the articles in other languages are still incorrect. Any idea how we can go about correcting the foreign-language articles as well? My Norwegian is non-existent! --A bit iffy 13:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

iffy - I dont have the faintest - I hoped to give some time to it yesterday but ended up chasing my own tail around the help pages trying to find a coherent explanation of how the categories work, or rather how to edit them. - I ended up sitting perplexed at 4:30 am wishing I'd never started. maybe soon I will put aside a couple of days to give it another try. just now though Ill check to see if youve already changed them back, if not ill do it. thanks for your note DavidP 01:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

categories?

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)

Ampersand considered harmful

No, the city does not have an Ampersand in its name, to my knowledge. If you read the actual law establishing the borough, you'll note it uses "Brighton and Hove" not "Brighton & Hove". Morwen - Talk 23:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Morwen. like you i too have spent a while trying to clear this little conundrum up, since you posted, I might add. The reason that I was so sure that the ampersand was policy, was that I had a conversation with an ex mayor of the city and they insisted that the proper useage was with an ampersand.

the 'actual law' that you give a link to, are only the notes to the statutory instrument that notifies transitional provision of authority from the two separate towns - in effect it disbands their separate local authorities and forms a transitional one. that lasted 5 years.

the actual royal charter of 2000 that confers city status is worded thus:

"ELIZABETH the SECOND BY THE GRACE OF GOD OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND & OF OUR REALMS & TERRITORIES QUEEN HEAD OF THE COMMON WEALTH DEFENDER OF THE FAITH.

To all to whom these Presents shall come Greeting. Whereas We for divers good causes and considerations Us thereunto moving are graciously pleased to confer on the Towns of Brighton and Hove the status of a city Now Therefore Know Ye that We of Our especial grace and favour and mere motion do by these Presents ordain declare and direct that the TOWNS OF BRIGHTON AND HOVE shall henceforth have the status of a CITY and shall have all such rank liberties privileges and immunities as are incident to a City. In witness whereof We have caused Our Letters to be made Patent Witness Ourself at Westminster the thirty first day of January in the fourty ninth year of our reign.

By Warrant under The Queens Sign Manual Phillips."

Quite a mouthfull, and not exactly common usage, but it does not refer to the name of the new city at all, simply that the towns currently known of as Brighton and Hove shall have the status of city.

the link to the charter is here

however if you take a look at the cities website I'm sure you will agree that there is a concerted effort to use the ampersand.

Finaly there is the matter of correct usage - an ampersand is the correct form for a proper noun in the UK. As Brighton universities Publication and corporate identity guidelines point out:

Ampersand (the & symbol)

Don’t use except where correct form of proper noun

• Brighton & Hove

• Marks & Spencer.

so although the ampersand may not be the most web friendly of characters (Brighton & Hove council simply replace it with a hyphen for their URL rather than replace it with 'and') most search engines ignore both the & and the word 'and'. It is correct. I dont quite see why you consider it 'harmful'?

DavidP 01:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ampsersands in URLs are bad. But that's not really a problem. I think we ought to remove the claim that it "is the only city that has an ampersand in its name", since the ampersand is only used informally. Morwen - Talk 14:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

And of course, I meant to link to [1]. Whilst you may deride this as a 'transitional provision of authority from the two separate towns', it still forms the current legal basis for the council, and has not been entirely superseded - certainly not by the royal charter, which is an entirely ceremonial document. Morwen - Talk 14:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

And I'm fine with keeping the article here, by the way. As long as someone updates the template Template:South_East_England or whatever its called. Morwen - Talk 15:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm diving in a bit late in the day, but nevertheless... I also consider ampersands to be dangerous. I don't dislike them, and I think it's a pity that they're dangerous, but they have long been used a kind of "control character" in various computer systems, and I prefer web documents to err on the side of caution. If it were absolutely certain that the ampersand is the correct usage, that would modify my opinion, but that case hasn't been proved yet.

Also, I can't resist pointing out a flaw in the logic where the Brighton University document is referenced. I don't do this to be pedantic, but to prevent a flawed argument from being accepted by default, and adding weight to one side of the argument. Basically the document in no way suggests that the ampersand is proper usage for a proper noun; it merely states that they should not be used in any other way, which is a much "smaller" scope of statement. In any case, a University style guide is no guide to correct usage, it's merely a marketing guideline for a single organisation.

I'm sorry to stir this up, but my reading of this page suggests that we now have two people speaking in favour of the ampersand (David P and A bit iffy) and two against (Morwen and me). Would anybody else care to cast a vote? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

New evidence

I can't believe I hadn't noticed before, but the official sign at the north of the city where the A23 enters says "Welcome to the city of Brighton and Hove" - with the ampersand only appearing in the logo above.

Another new thing is that certain versions of Firefox, with certain common enough extensions (including "linkify") are currently buggy, and prevent editing of Wikipedia articles with ampersands in the title.

Since we have a broad split in opinions (and the debate has gone cold), and since these are two reasonably strong new points, I think it's time to swing the balance of evidence the other way and rename the article without the ampersand. – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would contest this - sorry Kieran! Is that A23 sign actually an official, formal statement by B&H council? Or, more likely, is it something knocked up by an inattentive person in the Highway Maintenance department? I would say that the B&H council's opinion of the city's name is what it itself uses on pretty well all its stationery and, above all, its website - these state "Brighton & Hove".

As for the Firefox problem with ampersands, which version of Firefox would that be? If it's an older version, I would guess that most Firefox users keep their versions pretty much up to date, so it's only a problem for a small proportion of articles for a small proportion of users of a browser which itself has a small proportion of Internet users. There are many, many articles with ampersands in their titles, and renaming them to fit in with a minority browser would be quite wrong - it's really a Mozilla issue, not a Wikipedia issue. There are even cases where they could not be renamed by replacing the ampersand with "and": In Sickness & In Health and Richard & Judy being just two examples.--A bit iffy 11:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see I'm never going to be happy about this one. ;-) How about, as a compromise, we come up with a form of words for the introduction, just after where the ampersand is first used, which makes it clear that this cannot be definitively established as the correct version (particularly with the legal documents mentioned far above in mind)? – Kieran T ^(talk) 16:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's best. Maybe something like Brighton & Hove (or Brighton and Hove) is a unitary authority and... I'm not totally comfortable with that, though, as I don't like to see lead sentences become cluttered. So maybe there should be a separate section "==Name==" devoted to it, and this would allow expansion on the topic. This could include such things as the wordings in the legal documents (even though those still don't say to me that the city's official name is "Brighton and Hove"!). Also, it could include, if someone can organise it, a photo of the A23 sign - that would be a nice touch to demonstrate the uncertainty. In addition, I have a feeling that the house style of the Argus is to use "and" instead of the ampersand, so that could be included. Of course, what should definitely be included is what the council calls the city via its stationery etc. What do you think?

Also, if you don't mind, I want to back to the earlier argument about Brighton University's style guidelines: that argument is valid, because the guidelines imply that the university believes the correct name of the city uses the ampersand, and hence overrides their normal style of not using ampersands. And looking at Marks & Spencer, the official name as registered with Companies House is "MARKS AND SPENCER P.L.C.", but they choose to be generally known as Marks & Spencer.--A bit iffy 12:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree about disliking unweildy intros. I'll put it in as you've written above for now, and we can try to refine it or move it into the article. On the company name argument, there is a subtlety to it: the company may "trade as" what it wishes, but it still has articles of memorandum (or a constitution, or charter, or what have you) that state its official name, which remains unchanged by what it puts on its stationery etc. Which gets us back to the infuriating complexity of the legal documents granting city status. – Kieran T ^(talk) 14:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'official' name of the City

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 ISBN 0 11 039106 3, 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 [2])

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)

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)

Makes sense. It's the way it is on that sign by the roadside. The Council has a logo, the city has a name. Why should they be the same? Which is the article about, anyway? 90.203.123.212 (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC). Brighton and hove is a city right? I’ve been on Wikipedia and says Brighton town and another one for hove, no such thing anymore,saying Brighton and hove still two separate towns but make up the city Brighton and Hove. Doesn’t make sense? We are one city, yes theres Brighton yes there’s hove,2 different parts of the city,if you agree please help me change this

Stub?

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)

Division into areas

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)

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)

Jedi census statistics

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)

I agree; one line about it coming top in any area of census data may well be worth a mention.mr_happyhour 16 Nov 2006

Done. I wonder why nobody has done it before, or whether it has always been commented out. Wikipeditor 09:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been done before: diff Wikipeditor 09:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Info

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)

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)

Stoke on Trent

Stoke on Tent was formed in the same way and Stoke-on-Trent IS the main article.

2000 or 2001? When were 'city status' letters patent granted?

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)

Queen Elizabeth's 1st year of reigning was from 6th February 1952 to 5th Feb 1953. Her 41st year was from 6 Feb 1992 to 5 Feb 1993. Her 49th year was from 6 Feb 2000 to 5 Feb 2001. She signed her letters patent on ‘the thirty first day of January in the forty ninth year of our reign.’ This was on 31st January 2001, i.e. not in 2000. Have corrected the article accordingly. --Observer29 (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

City status 'Joint winner'?

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)

After careful thought, I have removed 'the joint winner', and modified the wording to include reference to other towns also awarded city status at this time.--Observer29 (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Does not appear correctly in small window

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)

Image of Brighton & Hove

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)

Refocus this article as a unitary authority

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)

First ever Brighton Wiki Meetup

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)

Merge discussion

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)

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)

I agree that this article should be a proper article describing the city, history, transport, economy, etc, but not as a merge. To suggest a merge would imply removing the separate Brighton article, in particular, which should not happen for the reason stated just above. But yes the city as a whole should have most of the present-day information in it. We need more input on this question from other regulars on these pages. Sussexonian (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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? - TheLeftGlove^{Talk To Me} 10:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

One City, Two Towns!

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)

No, Brighton and Hove is a city containing a large number of places (not two!) each with its own feel. I have not proposed merging the articles but a large part of what is in the Brighton article is information about the city as a whole. As The Left Glove also says, detail which is specific to one of the areas should of course be on the page for that area. Sussexonian (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Economy

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)

Summer

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)

 Done ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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: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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

DVLA ban insignificant?

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)

One page

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)

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),

Political control

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)

Images

[Murgatroyd49] what is wrong with a lot of images? The formatting still looks ok from what I can see and they provide context for the area's being discussed. What would you like to see? Thanks Paolo Oprandi (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

1) Too much sandwiching, see MOS:SANDWICH

2) Too many images of random grassland.

3) Convention is to put images to the right unless there is a very good reason to put them left.

4) What is the point of the second diagram under area?

5) The map in the Area section is too big and should have the different regions shown on it to be useful. See for example, Southampton#Areas and suburbs. If you don't know how to do it you can get advice from Commons:Help desk.

Hope that heps Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - It kind of helps although I have not been convinced. Taking each case at a time:

1. possibly depending on your resolution, but if you are using a phone you see one image after the other. Are you saying that in some resolutions, the formatting makes a left and a right image a problem? On shrinking my browser, it would be a strange resolution as far as I can tell.

If you see MOS:SANDWICH, it explicitly states the problem as when there are two wide images. This is not the case here.

2. I am sorry, but they are not random images of grassland. They are the important areas and part of our National Park that are being described.

3. The reason they are to the left is because the depict the area being described. When they are to the right they do become quite random.

4. Brighton and Hove is a downland and coastal city. Both what the coast to the south and the downland to the north is what make our city special. This image names the seafront areas to the south in relation to the downland peaks and valleys to the north. This is useful for people wanting to know the area better.

5. I do prefer the map you have linked to but I am not sure how to recreate it. I would be very happy if you would like to do one. This use the Wikipedia Open Street Map. I have seen bigger maps like the Leicester map.

So in summary, thanks for your input on this. I would like more reasonable instruction, in light of my comments, about what changes would make you happy for us to remove the notice. Paolo Oprandi (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I have centred the map displays. I hope that resolves your concerns. Paolo Oprandi (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

That just moves them from left to right, still ends up with the same problem of the text being squeezed down the side. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That is not quite right; before we had a map on the left and an image on the right and so the text was squeezed. Now we only have a map on right (corrected). How many words are there in this squeezed column on your screen? I did centre the image and map so no text was squeezed at all and using the clear template, but this ended up with lots of white space. I feel like what we have now is the least bad option so far. I am of course concerned that I am missing something and am happy to rectify, so the page works for everyone Paolo Oprandi (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you are looking at but the wiki markup just shows default positioning, ie placed on the right of the screen. This is on a desktop window display set to the wiki defaut width. A tablet shows the same in portrait mode. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry - you're correct - the map is on the right but the points are still the same. I will take a look on a tablet when I get a chance.

I've changed size of maps to the same size as the Southampton#Areas and suburbs to account for different screen sizes. I hope to become more familiar with map options in order to make the map even more useful in the future or if any one else would like to take this forward that would be great. Paolo Oprandi (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for an account of the beaches

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)

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)

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)

Unitary authority

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)

It is still a unitary authority. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

1 page

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)

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)

Notification of discussion: how and when to record award of city status

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)

Areas

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)

@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)

The top map does but what does the bottom diagram add? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

That I understand but my question is still, why have both? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

Why duplicate the information? I doubt many people would seriously use them in the field. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

Brighton Permaculture Trust

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)