Talk:Clock Tower, Brighton

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BrightonWikipedia:WikiProject BrightonTemplate:WikiProject BrightonBrighton articles

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Clock Tower, Brighton appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 June 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Clock Tower in Brighton city centre has been variously described as "delightful", "worthless", "a giant salt-cellar", "charmingly ugly" and "supremely confident"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/June.

Wikipedia

Title[edit]

I am not sure the title of this article "Clock Tower, Brighton" is exactly by the book. 1Z (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The great majority of sources refer to it thus. I know there are other clock towers in Brighton, but it is (in my experience of the sources) unusual for this one to be referred to by its full name, Jubilee Clock Tower; rather, this one typically takes "Clock Tower" and the others take "Preston Park Clock Tower", "Queen's Park Clock Tower" etc. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was more the ", Brighton" I was concerned about. Something like "Clock Tower (Brighton)" looks more

standard to me.1Z (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean. I don't think there's an official policy on this, other than the guidance to aim for consistency across articles. When I started to write building/church articles that needed disambiguation by place, I found that the majority seemed to have the "X, Y" construction rather than "X (Y)", so I went with that and continued on that basis. (Certainly in respect of UK-related articles; I think US-related articles seem to favour the "X (Y)" construction, though.) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clock Tower, Brighton. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102012900/http://blog.scrapperduncan.com/2013/01/17/useful-and-possibly-unlawful-public-toilets-in-brighton-and-hove/ to http://blog.scrapperduncan.com/2013/01/17/useful-and-possibly-unlawful-public-toilets-in-brighton-and-hove/

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 16:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]