Talk:Brighton

Change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Coming into Brighton there's no separation,signs welcome you to Brighton and Hove, driving through sign posts will guide you all the way to central Brighton from all angles stating City centre , for Hove signs after 2000 state (central Hove). After 2000 signage stating Brighton town centre is replaced by City centre! Brighton IS a unitary authority City of Brighton and Hove, come to Brighton, there's no town centre there’s ONE City centre ! No separate Town and City devide,Brighton and Hove is the City but Brighton is also classed as the City on its own,There’s No signpost after 2000 that says town for Brighton or Hove . all signpost,road signs,bus stops,websites,Brighton council,local papers,Brighton City airport and many more say the same,after 2000 every new road sign about 40 of them state City centre for central Brighton and Central Hove for Hove,I’m the stating facts I know I’m not a Wikipedian but I’m right so please can we work together. 78.86.166.88 (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand what change or changes are being proposed. Could you clarify please? Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I think firstly Brighton should say City? Or City and unitary authority? I know it is a seaside resort but think this would describe it better. 78.86.166.88 (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I see. The problem is (and I appreciate that it makes things complicated on Wikipedia) that Brighton itself is not the city: that status applies specifically to Brighton and Hove (i.e. the entity formed in 1997 from the merger of Brighton Borough and Hove Borough, and which then became a city in 2000). So in relation to this article, we need to find some suitable description for Brighton which makes it clear that it is part of a city but is not the city itself. I must admit I don't really know what the best answer is: since the unitary authority was created, Brighton itself doesn't really have any official status (whereas previously it could legitimately be described as a town and a borough). I have in the past on other articles used the description "a constituent part of the city of Brighton and Hove" when referring to Brighton. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Brighton does class itself as the City also though, ok what about Brighton unitary authority of the City of Brighton and Hove 78.86.166.88 (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Although i agree Brighton is a Seaside resort, it shouldn't be in the main/short description, we can't just class Brighton as a seaside resort and it's certainly not a town. By having 'seaside resort ' we have been taken off the map. literally ! Brighton - City of Brighton and Hove on the south coast of England. Would be more appropriate and professional without it being so long and far less confusion. I propose Brighton ( City of Brighton and Hove ) this is how the City is pronounced coming into Brighton on the road signs 78.86.165.157 (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Or Brighton, Brighton and Hove,City in England 78.86.166.88 (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The current longstanding consensus is to describe the "Brighton" component of the city as a seaside resort. Further edit-warring on that will result in more blocks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

But Bighton is classed as the City of Brighton and Hove so that’s what it should say on here so Bighton (City of Brighton and Hove) would be correct. Everything else would stay the same and it explains the merger further down. 78.86.32.99 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

By whom is it so classed? This is an encyclopaedia: our evidence should be based on high quality, NPOV sources, not casual usage, ignorant inaccuracy, or promotional enthusiasm to overstate the case. Kevin McE (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"In the past couple of years tourists to Brighton and Hove have fallen in numbers."

I've added a tag here as it's unclear what is meant by the "past couple of years", particularly as the sources are from 2017 and 2018. If anyone has a reliable source as to whether this is still the case I think it would be valuable to add to this article and amend accordingly. SparksSparksSparks (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Update - I've tracked down more recent numbers and have amended this, as the information was out of date. SparksSparksSparks (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks; I was going to look into that, but hadn't had a chance yet. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Brighton City status with Hove and accurate recording

Same sockpuppet from Talk:Brighton#Change with a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

I recently made an amendment to this page highlighting that Brighton is a city with Hove. Brighton is not just a seaside resort as stated now. Wikipedia was set up to provide accurate, factual and objective information to the wider public. And as it stands this appears to be misleading the public. This goes against the core principles of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Importantly enough citations have been added to refer to such accurate information including the title of Brighton and Hove Council in the infobox and website stating Brighton and Hove City Council!

Please discuss? MatthewDavid41 (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Brighton, without Hove, is a seaside resort. The formation of the City of Brighton and Hove is more than adequately explained. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m advised that councillors from the council have raised this as an issue. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Brighton is with Hove, it’s the official name. ~2026-34519-40 (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, including at Talk:Brighton#Change, further up the page. I don't know whether the TA who encouraged you to start this thread is the same "tiresome LTA obsessed with city status" who is mentioned in that discussion's closure. Belbury (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

My position with this is that. This is not something up for debate, it is factual objective information. I was advised to add this if I wanted to discuss such issues. This is providing inaccurate information. Or does this require a formal response to Wikipedia from the City Council or MP?

This shouldn’t be a debate it’s fact. And the information here is misleading the public.

thanks MatthewDavid41 (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Why is it misleading? The city of Brighton and Hove has its own article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Brighton is a city with Hove. This needs to be reflected on all the associated pages. Or does this require a corporate response from Brighton and Hove City Council? Both are within the same area and as part of the city. MatthewDavid41 (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Brighton is not a city, neither is Hove. The two together have city status, not separately. To imply otherwise is to mislead the casual reader. See the above closed discussion.Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Like you say, Brighton and Hove is a city. The Brighton and Hove article clearly states that it's a city, there is no change required to make it factually accurate. It looks like you've read the wrong article, this is the talk page for the Brighton article, not the talk page for the Brighton and Hove article.

Brighton and Hove City Council are an English local government body. They collect bins, they don't govern Wikipedia. Joe D (t) 15:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Steinsky, User:Murgatroyd49; sorry your time was wasted with this; blocked as a tiresome WP:LTA who does not understand the difference between Brighton and Brighton and Hove. OhNoitsJamie ^talk 15:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Wards

We currently say 'There are 21 wards in the city of Brighton and Hove, of which 12 are in Brighton.'

2023 Brighton and Hove City Council election says 'Following the review, there were 23 wards across the council, an increase of two, and only five wards remained the same'. I don't know which of the wards can now be identified as in Brighton or even if the former Brighton / Hove boundary is still reflected in the new ward boundaries. There must also be changes in which wards are in which westminster constituency. Cavrdg (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Lead sentence: proposing "town and seaside resort"

To be clear at the outset: I am not proposing that Brighton be described as a city, and nothing here disturbs the recent addition of "and city" to describe Brighton and Hove. That question has been settled repeatedly and I have no wish to reopen it. My concern is narrower: the lead does not say what kind of settlement Brighton is.

The problem

MOS:FIRST says: "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." It adds that where a subject is definable, the first sentence "should give a concise definition".

Our current first sentence does not do that. Our own seaside resort article, which the lead links to, defines the term as "a town, village, or hotel that serves as a vacation resort and is located on a coast." That is a disjunctive category naming a function, not a settlement type: a reader following our own link cannot tell which of the three Brighton is. We are telling the reader what Brighton does without telling them what it is.

For what it is worth, the UK geography WikiProject's advice page (which I cite as convention rather than as a rule, since it is explicitly not a guideline) reaches the same conclusion about what belongs here: "Type of settlement: e.g. suburb, town, city, civil parish." Neither "resort" nor "seaside resort" appears anywhere on that page.

Why the settlement type matters here

The body documents a place whose character the current descriptor does not convey: two universities with some 38,000 students between them, American Express's European headquarters employing around 3,000 people, a digital and creative sector substantial enough to have earned the nickname "Silicon Beach", and frequent commuter services to London. The Economy section describes Brighton as "an important centre for commerce and employment since the 18th century". I am not proposing any other change to the lead here; I raise this only to show that a descriptor naming a function, without naming the settlement, leaves a reader with an incomplete picture of what Brighton is.

Practice elsewhere

I checked the defining clause of seventeen comparable articles. Not one uses "seaside resort" as a bare descriptor without an accompanying settlement noun.

• Paired with a settlement noun: Eastbourne ("a town and seaside resort in the East Sussex county"), Bognor Regis ("a town, seaside resort and civil parish"), Shanklin ("a seaside resort town and civil parish"), Llandudno ("a seaside resort, town and community"), and Bournemouth ("a coastal resort town and civil parish", using the cognate "coastal resort")
• Settlement type only, no resort noun: Blackpool, Margate, Scarborough, Torquay, Hastings, Southend-on-Sea, Weston-super-Mare, Skegness, Whitby, Morecambe, Clacton-on-Sea, Great Yarmouth

I then went looking for a counter-example across more than forty further British seaside articles and did not find one. The nearest are Sandown, Ilfracombe and Rhos-on-Sea, which pair "seaside resort" with "civil parish" or "community" rather than with a town-word; both of those are themselves settlement categories, so they follow the same pattern.

Hove, the other constituent of this city and one with identical status, reads "Hove is a seaside town in East Sussex, England."

More broadly, settlements inside cities are routinely called towns: Eccles and Swinton in the City of Salford; Castleford, Pontefract and Normanton in the City of Wakefield; Keighley, Ilkley and Shipley in the City of Bradford; Bilston and Wednesfield in the City of Wolverhampton. In most of these the word "town" carries no inline citation, and where a citation does appear in that clause it generally attaches to the civil parish or the location rather than to "town" itself. There are exceptions (Walkden and Pendlebury both cite it), but the general practice is clear: "town" is treated as ordinary description rather than a status claim requiring a source.

Sources

Britannica opens "Brighton, urban area (from 2011 built-up area), unitary authority of Brighton and Hove, historic county of Sussex, southeastern England. It is a seaside resort on the English Channel". I cite this for its structure rather than its wording: even the most conservative reference work here gives a settlement descriptor first and the resort characterisation second, which is exactly the two-part form the proposal restores. Britannica says "urban area" rather than "town", and I am not pretending otherwise.

Proposal

Insert "town and" before "seaside resort", giving:

Brighton is a town and seaside resort in the unitary authority area and city of Brighton and Hove, in East Sussex, England, 47 miles (76 km) south of London.

This keeps "seaside resort" untouched, keeps "and city" untouched, and adds the settlement type the first sentence currently lacks. It follows Eastbourne's existing wording, and makes no claim about city status.

Stewb179 (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2026 (UTC)