Contents

Talk:Brighton Palace Pier

Brighton Palace Pier has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 16, 2017. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Brighton High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource about Brighton and Hove. If you would like to participate, please visit the project pageBrightonWikipedia:WikiProject BrightonTemplate:WikiProject BrightonBrighton articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Architecture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

"Should the pier be moved to the new name or will a redirect do?" – I'd say a redirect will do. The article is the place to go into the details, and chopping and changing the article name isn't the way to do it, unless we're absolutely certain of the correct name. And as you say, "there are objections"; or in other words, it's controversial.

Incidentally, a redirect is of low value unless you think people will actually add in "Palace Pier" to the end of a Wikipedia URL. If they search for it in the normal way, they'll get to the article. Then again, a redirect doesn't exactly consume a lot of resources.

To the best of the knowledge of the reference books I have, that long name ("The Brighton Marine Palace and Pier") is the original name, but that does not make it "official". The National Piers Society may not recognise the new name, but they don't own the pier. The owners have the right to call it whatever they like. Please note, I'm not sticking up for a commercial body for any biased reasons. In fact, I'm personally no fan at all of the Noble Organisation, and would rather lend my personal support to the NPS, and I always call it the "Palace Pier" myself, having been in Brighton on and off for some years. But that's utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia where we merely reflect facts. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:UCN says to use "the most common name". I personally still call it the Palace Pier, but if "Brighton Pier" has become the most commonly-used name, and the one that people will tend to type in or link to, then it should stay as that. --McGeddon 09:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most common name can't include "what we think people call it" since that'd be original research — so we need to go with reliable sources. The Argus, being the most obvious one, goes with the corporate name, Brighton Pier. So do the owners' websites. So no matter how much weight we give the National Piers Society, they are, in terms of reliable sources, outnumbered. Please refer back to the point about what constitutes "official"? And just for edification, "that other one from ages ago" was "The Royal Suspension Chain Pier". ;) – Kieran T ^(talk) 10:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd propose something like this here:

Brighton Pier may refer to:

• Palace Pier, the current main pier of the city of Brighton and Hove
• West Pier, bla bla bla
• Chain Pier, etc etc etc

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

Spanky - sorry about the loss of your edit - there was obviously an edit conflict and the warning system must be broken as I didn't get one. It's happened again because your last edit has not incorporated my edit which carried an apology! Anyway, moving on... I don't object to the principle of a disambiguation page, but it should certainly not add to the confusion by using the name of one of the piers, i.e. Brighton Pier. If we're going to do it, it should be Brighton Pier (disambiguation). – Kieran T ^(talk) 10:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no worries Kieran. :) I agree, a Brighton Pier (disambiguation) page is exactly what I think is needed and would be the fairest way of dealing with naming issues. I know a lot of local Brightonians that insist the 'Brighton Pier' is the West Pier for example. At the end of the day, all of these piers are "Brighton Piers".Spanky Deluxe 10:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal for a disambiguation page per Spanky. DuncanHill 11:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bit late to the discussion but its almost exclusively called the 'Palace Pier' EEEEEE1 (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a place in this article for a valid discussion of the pier's owners in objecting to plans to restore the West Pier, which resulted in the plans being delayed and, ultimately, the destruction of the pier? JRawle (Talk) 11:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind all the normal constraints (original research, verifiability, reliable sources), I don't think there's much we can include that isn't conspiracy theory or local gossip. Perhaps there were useful articles in The Argus, but I couldn't cite any off-hand. There's been controversy in the past in the West Pier article regarding the veracity of claims made (with good heart, I dare say) by the ardent supporters of the West Pier, so we'd have to be extra careful about our sources. – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brighton Palace Pier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 09:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not overwhelmed by the two-sentence opening paragraph of the lead, could use a little bit of expansion.

I've dropped a bit more in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "over 4 million visitors" four.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Carry on at Your Convenience " should have On not on.

ooooh, matron Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know where the discussion is but like "the Beatles", there seems to be a trend towards "the Who" not "The Who" in this setting.

I think you're right - fixed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• " 85 miles" convert.

Oops, forgot. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "3 months " three.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• " it had fallen into a state of repair" disrepair?

Oops Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "colliding into the " things usually "collide with" not "into".

Changed to "colliding with"

• " in 1901, after opening" both are unnecessary, maybe "two years after opening"?

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Brighton Marine Palace and Pier should be a redirect to this article.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "kursaals " what are these?

Entertainment / health venues popular in 19th century continental Europe. I've dropped in a definition - we don't have an article (at least in the English Wikipedia)

• "mined " is piped to "sea mine" which redirects to "naval mine", cut out the middle man.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "some decking removed as a security precaution. A section of decking was removed in order to prevent access from an enemy landing." is this saying the same thing twice or something else? Either way it's repetitive.

This is what happens when you improve articles in random order without paying attention. Fixed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure there's a necessity to link storm.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If you insist on linking "barge", do it first time.

Don't think we need to do this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert 70-ton.

Stupid question - convert to what? Metric tonnes? {{convert|70|ton|adj=on}} brings up an error. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does 70-long-ton (71 t) work? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it does. I think. I like this video, though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• " looks fairly modern " reads a little like a tourist brochure.

I've rewritten this bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "2000-present" en-dash needed.

Aah, Bungle doesn't hit the "fix dashes using a script" after his editing sessions :-P Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "or some " shouldn't that be "and" or "nor"?

Changed to "nor some"

• " as the Palace Pier.[1] The Palace Pier suffered a large fire " repetitive prose, and really, really no need to link "fire". And "suffer a fire" is an odd turn of phrase.

Agreed (the link must have already been there when I came across the article and I didn't spot it) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "This was a fraught period for Brighton's piers, with much damage occurring to the West Pier shortly before and after this event" I don't really understand, if "this event" means the fire, how did "much damage" "occur" "shortly before" it?

I didn't write this, I just borrowed sources from West Pier. However, since the two fires are not actually related (at least not outside maybe a conspiracy theory website, which wouldn't pass WP:RS anyway), I've removed this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 2004 the " comma.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• " Brighton and Hove Council," missing a "City"?

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "unexpectedly put the pier for sale, with an expected" unexpectedly ... expected... is odd to read in the same sentence.

Removed "unexpectedly" (unexpected in whose opinion) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "PizzaExpress" appears to be one word.

Well that's what the article's under, though I see it's been challenged and to be honest I agree that the WP:COMMONNAME has two words. (Plus the BBC source used here also uses two words). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "roller coaster" or "rollercoaster"?

Since the article has a space, I'll go with that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mirrormask -> MirrorMask.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Brighton Marine Palace and Pier and Brighton Beach as viewed from the west" why the italics in that caption?

Not a clue - fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Could link National Express.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Works in references should be in italics e.g., The Argus.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Publisher of ref 5 simply says "Southern", what should it be?

Well that's what it's called, our article is at Southern (Govia Thameslink Railway). I've put a link in the ref. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - All addressed, I think only converting tons is still an issue. Anything else? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All good, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good show, have an ice cream and stick of rock as my appreciation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seagull Productions Can you please stop edit warring and explain why we need a list of rides in here, which is improperly sourced (see WP:WIAGA) and may not be factually correct (some of the rides are closed). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]